On Fri, 13 Feb 2004, Dustin Puryear wrote: > Let's regroup and consider an example that follows the discussion being held > here. > > I am a General in the military protecting a fortress. It is my job to keep > the treasure in the inner keep safe. Am I more secure by keeping my building > plans to myself, or by letting outside experts, who I have no control over, > review the plans for me? > > Naturally, it is entirely possible for an attacker to get his hands on my > plans even if I don't release them (e.g., because of an internal spy or, oh > I don't know, if an angry employee posts them on the Internet). It is also > possible that one of the outside experts is actually a future attacker. > > Which is better? Is it always better?
That is a great example. But i have a slight alteration that i think follows the discussion more closely. *I* am the general. I put you, the lieutenant general, in charge of protecting the fortress. I have the building plans, but i don't give them to you. You are still in charge of keeping the treasure safe, but you don't know all the architectural weaknesses of the fortress. Further, it's entirely possible that both friend and foe have seen the plans and knows of weaknesses you don't. Now i ask you the same question. Which is better? :) ray
