> if you eliminate 95% of the holes, it may be > *effectively* secure, simply because it isn't worth the attacker's time to > fight for the other 5%
wtf? if someone has working exploit, the probability of breaking is 100% no matter what the constant 95% is claimed to be. about fighting for 5%: malware like nimbda and code red appear counterexamples - i suppose they automatically fought for 100% and got what they could get (quite above your 5%). -- joro _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
