> The United States, as well as any other nation hooked into the > Internet, is losing the battle against cyberthieves and hackers > looking to commit crimes and steal sensitive, and possibly > classified, information from networks. And it doesn't look like we > will be able to improve the situation much in the near future.
Gah. That is *so* factually misleading (not to mention the illiterate confusion between metaphor and simile). There is a *lot* of "able". What's lacking is the "willing" to go with it. As one simple example, anyone running Windows will get a substantial improvement in practical security by scrapping it. It doesn't even much matter what it's scrapped in favour of. (Despite all the theoretical reasons why Windows may be no less secure than $OTHEROS, in practice, it is the least secure OS around at the moment, against the kind of threats being discussed here.) But people say they "can't" scrap Windows when what they mean is they're not willing to pay the prices involved; presumably this means they'd rather pay the other prices, the prices of running it, instead. > That sobering assessment comes from cybersecurity expert Seymour > Goodman, who was in Washington, D.C., yesterday to give a talk on > securing the Internet at the Hudson Institute. More sloppiness. The Internet does not really need securing (for the most part - it does have its insecurities, but, again, they're not the ones being discussed here). It's users and uses of the Internet that need securing. /~\ The ASCII der Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML [EMAIL PROTECTED] / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B _______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
