nanog mailing list archives
Re: Fwd: Dan Kaminsky
From: Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 13:09:37 -0400
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:53:39 BST, "andrew.wallace" said:
The hackers criticized Mitnick and Kaminsky for using insecure blogging and hosting services to publish their sites, that allowed the hackers to gain easy access to their data.
*yawn*. kiddies whack low-value sites, death of Internet predicted. Film at 11. What Mitnick and Kaminsky realize, and most NANOGers hopefully do too, is that security comes with costs, and a cost-benefit analysis is in order. Mitnick came out and *said* that he knew the site was insecure, but since no sensitive data was on there, it didn't matter. Presumably the site's monthly cost, convenience, user-interface, and so on, outweigh the effort of occasionally having to recover after some idiot whizzes all over the site. Now, if they had managed to whack a site that Mitnick and Kaminsky *cared* about, it would be a different story...
Attachment:
_bin
Description:
Current thread:
- Fwd: Dan Kaminsky andrew.wallace (Jul 29)
- Re: Dan Kaminsky andrew.wallace (Jul 29)
- Re: Fwd: Dan Kaminsky Randy Bush (Jul 29)
- Re: Fwd: Dan Kaminsky Andrew D Kirch (Jul 29)
- Re: Fwd: Dan Kaminsky Randy Bush (Jul 29)
- Re: Dan Kaminsky Dragos Ruiu (Jul 30)
- Re: Dan Kaminsky Richard A Steenbergen (Jul 30)
- Re: Fwd: Dan Kaminsky Andrew D Kirch (Jul 29)
- Re: Fwd: Dan Kaminsky William Allen Simpson (Jul 30)