[clug] Re: More (almost free) stuff. - 3.5" WD 200GB IDE - $10

[Steve McInerney]

On Wed, September 10, 2008 23:26, Paul Wayper wrote:
> Steve McInerney wrote:
> | On Tue, September 9, 2008 22:40, Paul Wayper wrote:
> |> Realistically, by the same argument, I think there's probably a fairly
> |> good
> |> case for just writing twenty-six alternating all-ones and all-zeros
> |> layers.
> |
> | Under what circumstances?
> | "I think..." is not a terribly useful risk analysis. :-)
>
> Well, in case you can't follow the logic, the reason the attack Ian
> mentioned
> works is because the bits are recorded in the analogue domain, with values
> above 1.0 and below 0.0 and in between as well.  Each time you change the


Apologies. You appear to have misunderstood the nature of my question.

To expand:
Under what circumstances would a 26x write be "good enough" vs a 1x write
vs "something else" vs nothing?


> And, fundamentally, I think the thing that is truly wrong about these
> people
> is that they never admit that they might be being too cautious, too
> paranoid,
> to suspicious.  They always justify themselves in nice bold terms of
> National
> Security and Protecting Our Customers, and expect that we'll just throw
> more
> and more money at them to meet whatever they say they need.

Hmmmm. That's certainly a position to take. An alternate position is that
you're not even remotely appreciative (ie ignorant) of the problem space.
As a partial expansion: the threats and capabilities that must be factored
in.


> | Out of idle curiosity: How many soldiers lives wasted would you consider
> | to be sufficient proof that this was no longer a waste of money?
> | How many leaks of bank account details?
> |
> | No. It's called Risk Analysis.
>
> Are you actually serious about this?
>
> Because I think you need to tell me, first, how many soldiers have died in

Nope. Not at all interested in arguing various fallacies or who is the
least hypocritical. Please take those arguments to aus.flame or wherever.

My intent with raising the soldiers lives et al, was to demonstrate yet
another part of this hairy equation that you haven't addressed. Namely
that of the consequences of failure. That you chose to phrase this as
"emotional blackmail" further demonstrates your failure to address any/all
of the issues involved.


Repeating for context:
> | No. It's called Risk Analysis.
> Are you actually serious about this?
...
> If you're going to wave the "risk analysis" flag around, then please do so
> with actual justification.
...
> I do not consider it a valid argument to say "just in case there are any
> problems that we might not have foreseen,.....


Ok. I can see the key problem we're having in this discussion clearly
demonstrated in your quoted statements.

You don't actually understand what security is and what it is for.

If you're interested in learning, then I am more than prepared to explain.
Otherwise there isn't a lot of point in continuing this discussion.


???

Cheers!
- Steve