|
Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email hr@neohapsis.com |
Re: [Dailydave] Hackers more secure?
From: Bruce Ediger (eballen1
qwest.net)
Date: Tue Oct 04 2005 - 21:24:16 CDT
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Tue, 4 Oct 2005, Jeremy Richards wrote:
> networks'? I propose that hacking and 'defence in depth', or ensuring a
> networks compliance are very, _very_ different animals.
The minute somebody says "compliance", I know that they're just a corporate
drone (saving your majesty's presence, of course!) intent on completing
some checklist which may not even have a logical basis, much less make the
"compliant" person or system safe/ethical/aware/secure.
I don't see anything that would prevent a "hacker's network" from being
more secure, in one sense or another, than a "compliant" network. Again,
at least the hacker didn't have some silly checklist to blind him/her/it
against some obvious procedure that doesn't appear on the checklist.
I mean, for crying out loud, some "compliant" networks demand the use of
Internet Explorer, and Outlook. What sense does that make?
--
Bruce Ediger
720-932-1954
eballen1qwest.net
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]