|
From: | Alex |
Subject: | Re: lilypond via web interface: security considerations |
Date: | Fri, 22 May 2009 14:32:44 +0100 |
User-agent: | Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) |
Graham Percival wrote:
100% bullet proof security is a myth though. The complexity of computer systems and software is just too high. Total security is a goal you can approach sympotically, with more effort.... (Look at military systems. As interested in security as anyone would or could be, and they resort to 'unplug it' tactics like airgaps.) A well looked after system could repel most or all attacks directed at it. But never say never.On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 02:47:54PM -0400, Mike Blackstock wrote:Of course, 'security' is relative - nothing will stop a commited hacker who's targeted your system, so I'm a bit mystified by some of the other responses here.That's not true -- The only reason that computer security is a joke is that people *treat* it like a joke. It's entirely possible to create a system that will foil a committed hacker.
The people who operate them are often not so deterministic and don't always behave in the "optimum" way though.Now, does this involve a lot of work? Certainly. And consumers willing to pay to have this work done? Definitely not! But that doesn't mean that computer programs are some magical black box that anybody can break. Barring random bit-flipping from solar rays, computers are deterministic objects.
By "a lot of work", suppose that all programmers (and academics) stopped implementing new features and new programs in 1994, and spent the past 15 years just improving security. How many holes do you think would be left in the result?
Not as many, but I wouldn't say zero! lex
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |