From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 1995 04:51:22 -0400
From: Vadim Antonov avg@postman.ncube.com
Subject: religious wars
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 18441c66-eac8-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025
Message-ID: <19950818085122.vXECnlE6w5lbGEfaifcl-WvPDcgBoevfo7Lqaa7xG84@z>

Well, i'm not against better security -- as long
as it can be tuned to fit the requirements.

Note that the option i added *is not on by default*.

Let me reiterate that the security level should be
adequate in regard to the value of information.
By not providing the low security you effectively
eliminate the whole class of applications for the
system.

"What?  Give securenet keys to all people who want
to log into the xxx account?  I don't even know
them!"

BTW, i appreciated the joke about managenment not
wanting you (designers of the system) to see their
information :)

The session stealing attacks do not have to be
easily identifyable, and in fact they are already
happening, as the knowledge is becoming more common.
Also, while the "passive snooper" is a nice theoretical
model in data world all passive snoopers have
capability for active interference by definition.
One-time passwords are a mere deterrent, not the system
a determined hacker can't break.  Cleartext passwords
are also a deterrent.  I may choose not to protect the
system at all and use the police as a deterrent.

Please don't force the choice of security level down
the system administrators' throats.  They know the
local circumstances better.  In our village doors are
left open more often than in yours :)

It is not a "religion", it is a common sense.  I saw
too many misguided efforts to improve security by
making it hard to use, to the net result that everybody
simply ignores the procedures.  Ah, those proverbial
holes in fences of top-secret installations.

--vadim