full-disclosure - Re: Fwd: Rate Stratfor's Incident Response

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <135637.1325970497@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Date: Sat, 07 Jan 2012 16:08:17 -0500
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To: Shyaam Sundhar <shyaam@...il.com>
Cc: full-disclosure <full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Rate Stratfor's Incident Response

On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 15:55:28 EST, Shyaam Sundhar said:

> My question(s) would be: why are people sloppy by nature when it comes to
> security? Why is security still considered as a blanket as opposed to the core
> of any system?

In most shops, the level of competence is barely sufficient to make sure that
the payroll system prints a check for every employee with the correct number on
it. Trying to keep the system running *and* secure is beyond their competence
level, so you have to choose one - running or secure.  Most managers will
choose 'running', because if they choose 'secure', *they* don't get a paycheck
either...

(Vastly oversimplified, but that's pretty much it in a nutshell).

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/