The distinction is not really danguerous because I do not exclude the human problem from the technical problem when looking for a "broad" solution. But there are problems relative to computer security that are not related to, lets say, CCTV security. For example, it just does not make sense ask how the inferared sensor scanning the company property will solve the buffer overflow problem. Why? Because one is a physical security design problem the other is a software problem cause by bad coding practice. So these types of problems can be logically seperated and the distinctions are useful.
You are right to maintain that you cannot solve non-technical problems with technical means in *all* cases. Do you know why I put a lock on the door? To keep honest people honest. (Implication: the crooks will try anyway.) But I maintain that the post was for technical information. You arguement is not really with me but with the origional poster: computer security deals with human issues too. 'ken' Meritt James wrote: > YOur distinction is harmful. There should not be "computer security" > any more than "hammer security". They are but tools. At worse, > information security. > > And I maintain that those seeking technical solutions for non-technical > problems are doomed to failure. For programming, remember that a > "feature" to some is a "bug" to others and an exploitable vulnerability > to others. The same "perfect" code. > > "'ken'@FTU" wrote: > >>Yes I have. And these are essential elements of security in general, not >>just computer security. >>
