On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 01:05:19 EDT, David Kennedy CISSP said: > >>>> > “The risks to patients now are very low, but I worry that they > could increase in the future,
> Give the man a tinfoil hat. Good for asteroids too. Odds at > the moment seem comparable. Please excuse me a moment while I > go get a Powerball ticket. At least I know Powerball will > definitely payoff for somebody, some day. > > >>>> > The experiment required more than $30,000 worth of lab equipment That's what they said about the "you can't read this passport RFID chip from more than a few inches away" - until somebody demonstrated a fairly cheap and effective attack from 30+ feet away. The good doctor is correct in recognizing that attacks only improve, they never get worse. > Would someone please explain the difference between a > vulnerability, a threat, a risk and a conflict of interest to > the good doctors. Has it occured to you that *maybe* the good doctors already recognize what vulnerabilities, threats, and risks the #1 company and designed into their product, and that's why the #2 company designed in countermeasures? Or are you saying that if IE is found to have a flaw, and the guys at Mozilla say "We saw that coming and Firefox works around that", that it's a conflict of interest for them to say so?
pgpkwuIeRL5ty.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ 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.
