Karen Palen wrote: > --- On Tue, 1/12/10, Imago <[email protected]> wrote: ... >> But in my opinion even fragile filtering is better then none at all. >> Because while some could get in the population en masse wouldn't be able >> to. > > This statement and the responses to it illustrate the reason I changed the > subject line to a generic one. Sadly you are not the only person who thinks > this way and it is totally false!
No it's not totally false. You condemn it by way of a false analogy. > I hasten to add that this tirade is not specifically directed at you, but > at the general notion that you express here. You propose a very bad idea > which is far too highly respected by the naive and inexperienced. > > This approach is far worse than "security by obscurity", rather it is > merely "feelgood security". By analogy it is like installing dummy fire > extinguishers rather than ones which work because "at least" the dummy ones > make everyone feel more secure. I suggest you ask your local fire > department about the wisdom of dummy fire extinguishers! In your analogy the "fragile filtering" is the equivalent of a dummy fire extinguisher. Unlike dummy fire extinguishers which don't put out any fires, fragile filters, at least the one asked for, would actually block based on how a client identifies itself. It does more then provide good feelings. The situation is more analogous to equipping with too few fire extinguishers rather then fake ones. I suggest you ask your local fire department if you would be better off with one fire extinguisher, a fake one, or none! It's always a danger that a security technique gets assumed to or, worse, claimed to do more then it actually does. John. _______________________________________________ Opensim-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users
