Fwd: Dan Kaminsky

Thu Jul 30 17:09:37 UTC 2009

On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:53:39 BST, "andrew.wallace" said:

> The hackers criticized Mitnick and Kaminsky for using insecure
> blogging and hosting services to publish their sites, that allowed the
> hackers to gain easy access to their data.

*yawn*. kiddies whack low-value sites, death of Internet predicted. Film at 11.

What Mitnick and Kaminsky realize, and most NANOGers hopefully do
too, is that security comes with costs, and a cost-benefit analysis is in
order.  Mitnick came out and *said* that he knew the site was insecure, but
since no sensitive data was on there, it didn't matter.  Presumably the
site's monthly cost, convenience, user-interface, and so on, outweigh the
effort of occasionally having to recover after some idiot whizzes all over
the site.

Now, if they had managed to whack a site that Mitnick and Kaminsky *cared*
about, it would be a different story...

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 226 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20090730/b436c4ab/attachment.sig>