The reason we don't call this "security" is because this isn't something you can rely on to mitigate a risk. If the burglar doesn't think or care about "looking in windows" then your wallet is just as vulnerable as the next person's.
That's not to say that there is no benefit to obscurity. However it's not something you can *rely* on to mitigate anything to any quantifiable metric On the other hand, the use of a safe mitigates you from burglars who break in without specific safe-breaking tools. Cheers Ken -----Original Message----- From: Eric Brouwer [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, 21 February 2009 3:59 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: SECURING WIFI ROUTER Actually, your shade example is a good one. Your closed shades would stop the random, wanna be burglar from taking a chance on breaking into your house, and finding nothing. They can't see that you have "stuff" through your windows. They just want quick cash, so they walk next door and see your neighbors wallet with cash sticking out on his table through the window. They break in his house, and take the easy, visible cash. On Feb 20, 2009, at 11:40 AM, Micheal Espinola Jr wrote: > My final rebuttal is this: There is no value in an aspect of security > or security process that can not be quantified. To do so is therefor > meaningless, and therefore has no value - other than some human oddity > that makes you personally feel good about doing it. > > Im going to go pull the shades down on all my windows and pretend > there are no bad guys outside. :-) > > -- > ME2 > > > > On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Jonathan Link <[email protected] > > wrote: >> I will stipulate that security only by obscurity is false >> security. But >> likely to remain unconvinced that there is no role or value for >> obscurity in the security process. ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
