RE: Secure 2.4.x kernel
A major point concerning "laws" is that they prevent nothing. Laws against murder have been around since the idea of "laws" was invented, yet murder still happens. Sometimes in new and spectacular ways.
Individual security, be it physical or logical, must be considered an individual responsibility. Each server, each PC, each system must have its own security addressed not in a standard "legislated" pattern, but with the unique attributes of that specific system in mind.
At the very least, turning off all "services" that are not specifically and deliberately turned on is the first step.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ralf Dreibrodt [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2001 23:07
> To: Gary MacDougall
> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: Secure 2.4.x kernel
> Gary MacDougall wrote:
> > Hmmm... Mom has a good point.
> > I think the bottom line is that we'll never have 100% security until
> > there are laws that protect the break-in's and hacking that occurs.
> > Still laws... not crappy little wrist slapping type laws.
> laws can´t do anything against unknown people.
> i think there is no way to find a hacker if he really doesn´
> t want to.
> btw, with that argumentation you are saying "come on, delete alle
> securitymailinglists and let us ask for better laws, don´t close your
> windows, when you are leaving your home , don´t close the doors".
> and that´s the totally wrong way (at least today).