[76969] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: It's a Presidential Mandate, Feds use it. How come you are not using FDE?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (james hughes)
Mon Jan 22 19:01:00 2007
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.0.20070119004842.05636270@pop.idiom.com>
Cc: james hughes <hughejp@mac.com>, cryptography@metzdowd.com
From: james hughes <hughejp@mac.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 11:10:46 -0500
To: Bill Stewart <bill.stewart@pobox.com>
On Jan 19, 2007, at 4:06 AM, Bill Stewart wrote:
> [...] if you're trying to protect against KGB-skilled attacks [...]
> On the other hand, if you're trying to protect against
> lower-skilled attackers, [...]
I always find these arguments particularly frustrating.
By slowly raising the bar for the lower-skilled criminals, you get
the effect in Steven's firewall book cover (I forget the version,
where you must be a certain height to attack the castle.)
For me, the bottom line is that if you protect against the former,
then you get the latter, and it is only a small matter of time when
the lower-skilled people will get a script to do the higher quality
attacks. Remember WEP?
I really have to question continuing a snail's pace information
protection arms war when we have all the tools we need to properly
defend ourselves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo@metzdowd.com
