Re: OT: Smartcards and Physical Security
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 11:52:21 -0800, Tom <tb.31123.nospam@comcast.net> said:
> On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 11:43:21AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Snippy, aren't we? Usually it is better to have basic logic
>> straight before you try for a mistaken sense of haughtiness.
> My logic is correct; apparently my understanding of the goals of the
> Debian project is not.
Methinks you know not yet the depths of the error: Goals of
the Debian project? Apart from the social contract, there is no such
thing
> I always thought it was first and foremost for the devs themselves
> ("we don't care if anybody uses it but us").
For some, sure.
> Under that reasoning, I'd think you'd *want* to spend money to have
> the best for yourselves.
Money often does not buy as much security as you think (often
it buys complacency). A smart card shan't protect me from a person
whose security habits I can't trust -- all a smart card tells me is
that the card is the machine. There could be 50 people and two kegs
of beer in close proximity.
Security is not gizmos. It is not cool hardware; it is people
who follow secire processes. Blowing 40k collectively is unlikely to
buy us much security.
>> Let me see if I can point out the logical flaws in words with few
>> syllables.
> Um, yeah. Take a bath.
Take a bath? take a _bath_? What are we, back in grade school now?
manoj
--
By definition, when you are investigating the unknown, you do not know
what you will find.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: