Re: Potetial Outpost Conflicts?

[Colin Rous <crous () sympatico ca>]

I suspected this question would come up.  While I think it is somewhat 
off-topic, I'll answer it in case others are interested in my rationale.

At 01:21 PM 16/01/2003, alaskan () telusplanet net wrote:

> On Wed, 15 Jan 2003 09:23:49 -0500, you wrote:
>
> Paranoid?

Having spent over twenty-five years (yes, 25 years!) in computer security, 
I don't consider it paranoia;  I consider it due diligence.  As I said 
originally, I also run two virus scanners.  I also run both Ad-aware and 
Spybot.  In fact, wherever possible I run multiple varieties of *any* 
security process.

> Why would you want to run a second and a third copy of software that
> does the same thing?

I don't.  I run two copies of software with the same *objectives*.  They do 
different things in different ways.

> The practice of multiples will slow your system down and add
> instability and vulnerabilities as stated by the programmers.

I'll live with the performance hit.  I won't tolerate instability and 
vulnerabilities which is why I asked the question.

> I think I'd sleep better knowing that at least one program is working
> to spec without the worry of not knowing if it helps to run multiples
> without a guarantee of performance.

How do you know it's "working to spec"?  How do you even know what its spec 
is?  If you sleep well with one firewall, good on you;  I sleep better with 
two.

Cheers,
Colin