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