[wplug] wireless vs non?

[Bobbie Eicher]

I agree that unless you're protecting something abnormally valuable
and important you shouldn't even bother trying for 100% security.  The
goal is just secure enough that it's not worth anyone's bother to get
past it.

It's not just about wireless security, it's the same way in anything
you do with computers where you might want to control the way a system
is behaved.

I've had users ask me "Well why don't you just completely stop people
from [something bad they shouldn't be doing]?" and often the answer is
just that guaranteeing that you can't do something bad would put too
much of a burden on honest users, and make the entire thing useless. 
It ends up being better to deal with the abuse as you catch it than to
cripple the system to avoid it before it's happened.

Any computer that can talk to anyone at all in any way at all is insecure.

- Bobbie

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 16:10:19 -0500, Bill Moran <wmoran at potentialtech.com> wrote:
> 
> If you're a big, obvious target (like a bank, or an ISP) then you need
> professionals monitoring your network activity.  If you're monitoring,
> you _will_ detect anomolies, and if you're competent, you'll track those
> anomolies down and realize they're attacks and react properly to them.
> These big-name jerks who get hacked are just trying to be cheap by not
> doing the monitoring and reacting that's their responsibility.
> 
> If you're not a big target, you can apply enough deterrents to make the
> crook go elsewhere (as has already been discussed).
> 
> For all _practical_ cases, you _can_ have a 100% secure network.
> 
> Yes, in the perfect, mathematical sense, it's impossible to have 100%
> anything, but that's not reality, that's math.