mmhmm. quick, now someone bring up full disclosure vs responsible disclosure.
On 10/16/07, Daniel Sichel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >My question is the following: does this sound sane to you? Do you > >really believe that someone will let you do all that, without causing > >chaos? Laptops are good because they are mobile. You are allowed to > >take them out and work from home. At home you have your own network > >which you would like to connect to. Even if you use a different > >account on that same laptop to connect to that network, the risk is > >still there. A system is as secure as the weakest link. > > This seems a rational observation. A system that cannot be used due to > "appropriate" security precautions is a useless system. When you make > security too onerous for end users, they subvert it, and who can blame > them? Their primary responsibility, at least in the commercial world, is > to get their assigned duties completed. When computer security begins to > seriously interfere or hamper that goal, then we have become their > enemy, not their ally. It's the same old story, computer security is > something you have, end user trust; and something you know, I must (and > can) allow my end users to get their jobs done timely and securely. > > Daniel Sichel, CCNP, MCSE > Network Engineer > Ponderosa Telephone > > _______________________________________________ > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. > Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html > Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ > -- mike http://lets.coozi.com.au/ _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
