Re: [CyberCash Media hype]
At 4:24 PM 9/14/94, nobody@shell.portal.com wrote:
Private on-line services use proprietary software to move funds, which reduces the risk of thieves breaking into the system. But only subscribers are permitted to make on-line purchases, and then only from participating merchants. For example, fewer than 3% of the people who frequent the CompuServe "mall" each month buy anything. The Internet, by contrast, is an unsecured free-for-all that uses "open" software to let tens of thousands of computers link up. That means more computer jocks know how it really works, increasing the chances of a break-in.
These are my favorite paragraphs. 1) Proprietary == secure 2) Understanding how it works == insecure -j -- "Blah Blah Blah" ___________________________________________________________________ Jamie Lawrence <jamiel@sybase.com>
These are my favorite paragraphs.
1) Proprietary == secure
2) Understanding how it works == insecure
-j -- "Blah Blah Blah" ___________________________________________________________________ Jamie Lawrence <jamiel@sybase.com>
I disagree. Proprietary is MORE secure, but security through obscurity is no security at all. The only thing that does is separate the proverbial men from the boys. It keeps the idiots who think they can crack a system from touching it, but the people who know what they are doing will learn it rather quickly. Understanding how it works is also not necessarily insecure either. What about PGP? Would you rather use some proprietary methond that may or may not have a backdoor or may not be as secure as it is touted to be? I prefer to use something that has been proven and tested. Chael -- Chael Hall, nowhere@chaos.bsu.edu
participants (2)
-
Chael Hall -
jamiel＠sybase.com