Full Disclosure mailing list archives
Re: Re: Security & Obscurity: physical-world analogies
From: Frank Knobbe <frank () knobbe us>
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 20:16:44 -0500
On Thu, 2004-09-02 at 19:49, James Tucker wrote:
A very well stated argument.The only remaining point I would like to hear your opinion on is whether said analogies may be useful (although clearly never complete) in the education of people, in order to provide an abstraction which they may understand more immediately rather than to require further knowledge in the field?
In my opinion, no, it does not appear to be useful. If you make an abstraction about IT related issues with a real world analogy, you may be able to bring across the action/issue you want to present, but it will be understood in relation to the real world, not cyber space. Any thoughts that are provoked in the people you are trying to educate will appear in reference to the real world, and play out according to real world physics. In effect, you are doing yourself a disservice by -- not so much confusing the subjects you want to educate -- but by leading their thinking down the wrong path, namely that of the physical world (or cyber space, depending on what surrounding the analogies plays out in). When you try to bring your point across, your subject will analyze it based on their experience and knowledge of the given situation. If you take an IT subject matter, and place it in a real world analogy, your subjects will analyze it based on their experience and knowledge of the real world surrounding you placed the analogy in. That means you not just completely side-step any issues that your idea may have in cyber space, but you also do not allow your subject to understand the idea in the frame of cyber space, and deny them further scrutiny and "massaging" the problem in the setting of cyber space. Further, your subjects may react with counter ideas and scrutiny based on the real world which of course don't work in cyber space where you transferred the idea from. While your subject may understand the point you are trying to make, you deny them to evaluate the problem the native surrounding (i.e. cyber space), which means your subject will not fully understand your idea in the native surrounding. You basically get that familiar "Uh hu, I think I understand" with the eyes glazed over. I hope that made it a bit clearer. Thinking about these issues, how we appear to recognize ideas and thought and process them, kinda makes my brain twist into funny 3-dimensional shapes. :) Cheers, Frank
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Current thread:
- RE: Response to comments on Security and Obscurity Clairmont, Jan M (Sep 01)
- Re: Response to comments on Security and Obscurity Valdis . Kletnieks (Sep 02)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: Response to comments on Security and Obscurity yaakov yehudi (Sep 02)
- Re: Response to comments on Security and Obscurity Barry Fitzgerald (Sep 02)
- Re: Response to comments on Security and Obscurity James Tucker (Sep 02)
- Security & Obscurity: physical-world analogies Peter Swire (Sep 02)
- Re: Security & Obscurity: physical-world analogies Dave Aitel (Sep 02)
- Re: Security & Obscurity: physical-world analogies Frank Knobbe (Sep 02)
- Re: Re: Security & Obscurity: physical-world analogies James Tucker (Sep 02)
- Re: Re: Security & Obscurity: physical-world analogies Frank Knobbe (Sep 02)
- Re: Re: Re: Security & Obscurity: physical-world analogies James Tucker (Sep 02)
- Re: Response to comments on Security and Obscurity Barry Fitzgerald (Sep 02)
- Re: Security & Obscurity: physical-world analogies gadgeteer (Sep 03)
- Re: Re: Security & Obscurity: physical-world analogies Tig (Sep 03)
- Message not available
- Re: Re: Security & Obscurity: physical-world analogies gadgeteer (Sep 03)
- Re: Re: Security & Obscurity: physical-world analogies ASB (Sep 05)
- Re: Response to comments on Security and Obscurity James Tucker (Sep 02)
- Re: Response to comments on Security and Obscurity Über GuidoZ (Sep 03)