On 10/15/2014 at 12:11 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 10/15/2014 10:17 AM, The Wanderer wrote: > >> On 10/14/2014 at 03:28 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>> Then what is that if it isn't "obscurity"? >> >> "Security by obscurity" isn't "no one knows the password" or "no >> one knows the account name"; it's something more like "no one knows >> there's a place to enter an account name or a password". > > You're limiting it too much. From Dictionary.com: > > obscurity > noun, plural obscurities. > 1. the state or quality of being obscure. > 2. the condition of being unknown: > ... That's a definition of "obscurity", which is indeed fairly broad. It's not a definition of "security by obscurity", which is considerably more narrow than the generic definition of "obscurity" would indicate. In many contexts, the use of the jargon phrase "security by obscurity" occurs specifically in order to draw on that more narrow definition. I believe that this is one such context. (I think that I also believe that using "security by obscurity" with a broader sense than that narrow one is inappropriate, because it introduces ambiguity as to which meaning is intended, and is therefore likely to be confusing to a potential reader. But that's a bit of a tangent.) Invoking the generic definition of "obscurity" in the face of a use of the jargon phrase "security by obscurity" is completely missing the intent, and the sense of that phrase. -- The Wanderer The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature