[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: ssh, /dev/urandom

On Thu, 2002-12-19 at 14:52, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> "Alfred M. Szmidt" <ams@kemisten.nu> writes:
> >    > Why do I feel like repeating this old mantra: Bad security is worse
> >    > than no security.
> > 
> >    Sez you.  Many disagree.  Especially for a system in development, with
> >    already has bad security.
> > 
> > Fine, would you like to work on this?  Or do you purpose to worse the
> > already bad security?
> Telnet has worse security than even a buggy miserably fake ssh.
> This seems like a case of the best being an enemy of the barely
> workable.

I'd suggest that this matter might better be addressed off-list, or else
identified as something that the two of you are not going to reach a
common vision through the mechanism of the mailing list. After 70 posts,
a significant block between two of obviously different perspectives, I
am doubting that this point is going to be satisfactorily resolved to
the concurrence of all parties through this medium at this time. I'd
offer that some of this effort might be even better lent to developing
possible translators to provide a viable /dev/urandom solution.

Just an observation from a former systems programmer who now does
mediation work, that is interested in watching the viability of The Hurd
and has speculated on concepts of possible future translators...
ML Kahnt New Markets Consulting
Tel: (613) 531-8684 / (613) 539-0935
Email: kahnt@hosehead.dyndns.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: