Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!sri-unix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!eric From: eric@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Eric Lund) Newsgroups: sci.crypt Subject: Re: Encryption of satilite broadcasts Message-ID: <3517@sdcrdcf.UUCP> Date: Tue, 9-Dec-86 13:37:39 EST Article-I.D.: sdcrdcf.3517 Posted: Tue Dec 9 13:37:39 1986 Date-Received: Sun, 14-Dec-86 20:30:33 EST References: <543@mit-amt.MEDIA.MIT.EDU> <2485@prls.UUCP> Reply-To: eric@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Eric Lund) Organization: System Development Corporation R&D, Santa Monica Lines: 28 > Your .signature file is not going to make them stop or even to >consider stopping their suppossed actions. You accomplish nothing, they >continue as always. At most you've wasted a couple of seconds of some poor >clods day and burned up few nano-seconds of Cray cpu time. So what. Sounds >real adolescent to me. Speaking as a System Administrator who has been both perpetrator and victim of both friendly and hostile attacks, I say PLEASE KEEP ATTACKING!!!!! A security system that is installed and never tested never shows its flaws until too late. I, personally, would rather be under friendly attack that shows me how to shield myself rather than become victim (again!) of a hostile attack. If these simple attacks show up a flaw in this supposed keyword seaching of exported data, then this will force our security agencies to come up with better measures, which, in turn, enhances our own security. To bring this back to sci.crypt, would you buy a cryptographic system from some guy that tells you "This system is so hard to break, we don't even bother testing it!"? These are my opinions, not necessarily those of my employer, my friends, my enemies, or any of my other personalities. My new flameproof armor needs a field test; do you need to test your new flamethrower? Eric the DBA