On Wed, 16 May 2001, David Wheeler wrote: > > From: "mshines" <mshinesat_private> > > RELIABILITY would be one criteria for secure programming... it > > would seem to me. > > Well, your statement appears to be mostly tongue-in-cheek, but there's > actually a valid issue hiding here. I don't agree with your statement. ... > Not all users require all of these requirements to the same degree. > Indeed, can trade between these. For example, a system that tries to > detect "suspicious" situations, and prevents you from reading your > data in such cases, may be very unreliable... but have great > confidentiality. Whether or not that's okay depends on how the system > is being used, but in some contexts this would be a _more_ secure > system. Yes, a more ``secure'' system might be a less ``reliable'' system as a whole. But any system can be only as secure as reliable _its_components_ _implementing_security_functions_ are. --Pavel Kankovsky aka Peak [ Boycott Microsoft--http://www.vcnet.com/bms ] "Resistance is futile. Open your source code and prepare for assimilation."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue May 29 2001 - 10:40:38 PDT