| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
That's not the only meaning of that statementThat's not the only meaning of that statementPosted Feb 2, 2006 5:28 UTC (Thu) by Ross (subscriber, #4065)In reply to: That's not the only meaning of that statement by elanthis Parent article: Van Jacobson's network channels
If you're only point is that security shouldn't depend on the network not being compromised I agree. However malicious users with unfettered physical access are not at all equivalent to malicious processes running under unpriviledged ids and that anything which makes them equivalent is decreasing security. Does it matter for well designed programs? No. But unfortunately tons of commonly used software is not well designed. If you can't trust IPs, port numbers, etc. many things break down. If you can't trust a program a user downloaded you should worry, but your network is not automatically compromised unless there is something which can be exploited on the system.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|
||||||||||||