'chindogu' seems almost appropriate but maybe not exact
http://www.designboom.com/history/useless.html
http://www.pitt.edu/~ctnst3/chindogu.html
--Anton
-
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending unsubscribe
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 01:04:10AM +1200, Peter Gutmann wrote:
That sounds a bit like unicorn insurance
[..]
However, this is slightly different from what Perry was suggesting.
There seem to be at least four subclasses of problem here:
1. ??? : A solution based on a misunderstanding of what
Perry E. Metzger writes:
Anyone have a good phrase in mind that has the right sort of flavor
for describing this sort of thing?
Well, I've always said that crypto without a threat model is like
cookies without the milk.
--
--My blog is at blog.russnelson.com | In a democracy the
?
Yes. The intent was that forging the fingerprint on a warhead should cost as
much or more than the warhead itself.
Talking of solving the wrong problem, that's a pretty bad metric - forging
should cost the damage an extra warhead would do, rather than the cost of an
extra warhead. That's got
John Denker wrote:
That's an interesting topic for discussion, but I don't think
it answers Perry's original question, because there are plenty
of situations where the semblence of protection is actually a
cost-effective form of security. It's an example of statistical
deterrence.
i've
Dave Howe wrote:
Nonsense fence maybe less metaphoric but more clear.
I disagree - one picket fence gives a clear impression of a protective
device
that is hardened at but one point - leaving the rest insecure. nonsense
fence
doesn't give any real image.
Perhaps, but sometimes rubbish
Adam Shostack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Let me propose another answer to Perry's question:
Wearing a millstone around your neck to ward off vampires.
This expresses both ends of a lose/lose proposition:
-- a burdensome solution
-- to a fantastically unimportant problem.
That sounds a
Single picket fence -- doesn't work without a lot of explaining.
The one I usually have usually heard is the obvious and intuitive
locking the door when the window is open.
(ie fixating on quality of dead-bolt, etc on the front door when the
window beside it is _open_!)
Adam
On Sat, Aug 06,
similar, except the characterised surface was sparkles in plastic
painted on the missile rather than paper?
Yes. The intent was that forging the fingerprint on a warhead should cost as
much or more than the warhead itself.
Talking of solving the wrong problem, that's a pretty bad metric - forging
John Denker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, unless/until somebody comes up with a better metaphor,
I'd vote for one-picket fence.
Nonsense fence maybe less metaphoric but more clear.
-- -
Ilya O Levin
http://www.literatecode.com
Ilya Levin wrote:
John Denker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, unless/until somebody comes up with a better metaphor,
I'd vote for one-picket fence.
Nonsense fence maybe less metaphoric but more clear.
I disagree - one picket fence gives a clear impression of a protective device
that is
Here's a thought:
Putting up a beware of dog sign, instead of getting a dog.
On Sun, Aug 07, 2005 at 09:10:51PM +0100, Dave Howe wrote:
| Ilya Levin wrote:
| John Denker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|
| So, unless/until somebody comes up with a better metaphor,
| I'd vote for one-picket fence.
|
Perry E. Metzger wrote:
Frequently, scientists who know nothing about security come up with
ingenious ways to solve non-existent problems. Take this, for example:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003articleID=00049DB6-ED96-12E7-AD9
683414B7F
Basically, some clever folks
Adam Shostack wrote:
Here's a thought:
Putting up a beware of dog sign, instead of getting a dog.
That's an interesting topic for discussion, but I don't think
it answers Perry's original question, because there are plenty
of situations where the semblence of protection is actually a
Frequently, scientists who know nothing about security come up with
ingenious ways to solve non-existent problems. Take this, for example:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003articleID=00049DB6-ED96-12E7-AD9683414B7F
Basically, some clever folks have found a way to fingerprint the
Perry E. Metzger wrote:
We need a term for this sort of thing -- the steel tamper
resistant lock added to the tissue paper door on the wrong vault
entirely, at great expense, by a brilliant mind that does not
understand the underlying threat model at all.
Anyone have a good phrase in mind that
From: Perry E. Metzger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Aug 6, 2005 2:28 PM
To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
Subject: solving the wrong problem
Frequently, scientists who know nothing about security come
up with ingenious ways to solve non-existent problems. Take
this, for example:
http://www.sciam.com
Steven M. Bellovin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tickets are an excellent use for this, because it binds the printing to
a specific physical object. The concert industry has had a problem
with trying to use print-at-home tickets -- the fraudsters buy a single
ticket, then print it multiple
Reminds me of the White Knight from Alice in Wonderland, who doesn't
understand his threat model, and doesn't know how to effectively use
his tools:
`I see you're admiring my little box,' the Knight said in a friendly
tone. `It's my own invention -- to keep clothes and sandwiches in. You
see I
Perry E. Metzger wrote:
A variant on the moviefone.com model might work better for these folks
-- have the person buy the tickets with a credit card, and use a
machine to check that they are in physical possession of said card
when they enter the theater. Most people will not loan their cards
On Sat, 6 Aug 2005, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
We already have the term snake oil for a very different type of bad
security idea, and the term has proven valuable for quashing such
things. We need a term for this sort of thing -- the steel tamper
resistant lock added to the tissue paper door on
21 matches
Mail list logo
