Security quotes of the week
[Posted May 30, 2013 by jake]
With a guarantee of secure Internet access points, opposition groups would be able to link their terrestrial and wireless networks with those of like-minded groups. This would enable them to reach deeper into the country, giving broad sections of the Syrian populace Internet access. And because the United States would be able to monitor those networks, we could make sure that moderate opposition elements would be the primary beneficiaries.
—
The
New York Times puts out a call for a "cyberattack" for Syria
You can trade a little security for a bit of convenience. Then sacrifice some more security for some extra convenience. Then buy even more convenience at expense of security. There’s nothing particularly bad in this tradeoff in non-mission critical applications, but where should it stop? Apparently, Apple decided to maintain its image as being more of a “user-friendly” rather than “secure” company.
In its current implementation, Apple’s two-factor authentication does not prevent anyone from restoring an iOS backup onto a new (not trusted) device. In addition, and this is much more of an issue, Apple’s implementation does not apply to iCloud backups, allowing anyone and everyone knowing the user’s Apple ID and password to download and access information stored in the iCloud.
—
Vladimir Katalov of ElcomSoft finds some dubious Apple
security decisions
For any given politician, the implications of these four reasons are
straightforward. Overestimating the threat is better than underestimating
it. Doing something about the threat is better than doing nothing. Doing
something that is explicitly reactive is better than being proactive. (If
you're proactive and you're wrong, you've wasted money. If you're proactive
and you're right but no longer in power, whoever is in power is going to
get the credit for what you did.) Visible is better than
invisible. Creating something new is better than fixing something old.
Those last two maxims are why it's better for a politician to fund a
terrorist fusion center than to pay for more Arabic translators for the
National Security Agency. No one's going to see the additional
appropriation in the NSA's secret budget. On the other hand, a high-tech
computerized fusion center is going to make front page news, even if it
doesn't actually do anything useful.
—
Bruce
Schneier
(
Log in to post comments)