Dailydave: Re: Hackers more secure?

["Bruce Ediger" <eballen1 () qwest net>]

On Tue, 4 Oct 2005, Jeremy Richards wrote:

> networks'?  I propose that hacking and 'defence in depth', or ensuring a
> networks compliance are very, _very_ different animals.
The minute somebody says "compliance", I know that they're just a corporate
drone (saving your majesty's presence, of course!) intent on completing
some checklist which may not even have a logical basis, much less make the
"compliant" person or system safe/ethical/aware/secure.

I don't see anything that would prevent a "hacker's network" from being
more secure, in one sense or another, than a "compliant" network.  Again,
at least the hacker didn't have some silly checklist to blind him/her/it
against some obvious procedure that doesn't appear on the checklist.

I mean, for crying out loud, some "compliant" networks demand the use of
Internet Explorer, and Outlook.  What sense does that make?

--
Bruce Ediger
720-932-1954
eballen1 () qwest net