[PLUG] Time server broken...
Jeme A Brelin
jeme at brelin.net
Mon Feb 16 19:13:01 UTC 2004
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004, AthlonRob wrote:
> Does this mean Windows was 100% reliable up until the first security
> flaw was discovered? I think not. I think the OS was insecure before,
> we just didn't realize it.
If it wasn't realized by anyone, then it wasn't real. We're talking about
pure information, here.
> I wouldn't call any piece of software 100% secure.
I could write a "hello world" program that is 100% secure. After that,
it's just a matter of dilligence.
> It defies logic that something could be 100% reliably secure one moment,
> then completely insecure the next moment simply because of one
> individual gaining knowledge.
Um, you can't just claim that "it defies logic" without giving a
description or pointer to the logical fallacy.
If there is no known, existing way to exploit a piece of software, it is
100% secure because nobody has the means to exploit potential
vulnerabilities. If there is a known way to exploit the software, it is
totally insecure because anyone who knows how to use the exploit can do
so.
J.
--
-----------------
Jeme A Brelin
jeme at brelin.net
-----------------
[cc] counter-copyright
http://www.openlaw.org
More information about the PLUG
mailing list