<div>Hi list, I'll introduce myself with a claim:</div>
<div>"Software is like Titanic, pleople claim it was unsinkable. Securing is providing it power steering" </div>
<div> </div>
<div>thesp0nge<br> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 7/18/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Gadi Evron</b> <<a href="mailto:ge@linuxbox.org">ge@linuxbox.org</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">On Mon, 17 Jul 2006, Rajeev Gopalakrishna wrote:<br>> Reliability is concerned only with accidental failures while security has
<br>> to consider malicious attacks as well. The difference is in the intent of<br>> the software user: benign or malicious.<br>><br>> And for a bumper sticker, here is one for the pessimists:<br>><br>> "Secure Software is a Myth"
<br>><br>> and another version for the skeptics:<br>><br>> "Is Secure Software a Myth?"<br>><br>> :)<br><br>Again, this would speak only to a very small percentage of the<br>population. You me, maybe 10K people around the world if we are generous.
<br><br>><br>> -rajeev<br>><br>><br>> On Mon, 17 Jul 2006, Peter G. Neumann wrote:<br>><br>> > You suggest:<br>> ><br>> > Secure software is software that remains dependable despite efforts to
<br>> > compromise its dependability.<br>> ><br>> > You need a bigger-picture view that encompasses trustworthiness<br>> > and assurance.<br>> ><br>> > "Dependable systems are systems that remain dependable despite
<br>> > would-be compromises to their dependability."<br>> ><br>> > "Trustworthy systems are systems that are worthy of being trusted<br>> > to satisfy their requirements (for security, reliability, survivability,
<br>> > safety, or whatever)."<br>> ><br>> > Security is generally too narrow by itself, because a system that is<br>> > not reliable is not likely to be secure, especially when in<br>> > unreliability mode!
<br>> ><br>> > The principle of Keep It Simple is inherently unworkable with respect to<br>> > security. Security is inherently complex. Trustworthiness is broader and<br>> > even more complex. But if you don't think about trustworthiness more
<br>> > broadly, what you get is not likely to be very secure.<br>> ><br>> > Forget the bumper sticker approach.<br>> ><br>> > _______________________________________________<br>> > Secure Coding mailing list (SC-L)
<br>> > <a href="mailto:SC-L@securecoding.org">SC-L@securecoding.org</a><br>> > List information, subscriptions, etc - <a href="http://krvw.com/mailman/listinfo/sc-l">http://krvw.com/mailman/listinfo/sc-l</a><br>
> > List charter available at - <a href="http://www.securecoding.org/list/charter.php">http://www.securecoding.org/list/charter.php</a><br>> ><br>> _______________________________________________<br>> Secure Coding mailing list (SC-L)
<br>> <a href="mailto:SC-L@securecoding.org">SC-L@securecoding.org</a><br>> List information, subscriptions, etc - <a href="http://krvw.com/mailman/listinfo/sc-l">http://krvw.com/mailman/listinfo/sc-l</a><br>> List charter available at -
<a href="http://www.securecoding.org/list/charter.php">http://www.securecoding.org/list/charter.php</a><br>><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>Secure Coding mailing list (SC-L)<br><a href="mailto:SC-L@securecoding.org">
SC-L@securecoding.org</a><br>List information, subscriptions, etc - <a href="http://krvw.com/mailman/listinfo/sc-l">http://krvw.com/mailman/listinfo/sc-l</a><br>List charter available at - <a href="http://www.securecoding.org/list/charter.php">
http://www.securecoding.org/list/charter.php</a><br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>$>cd /pub<br>$>more beer<br><br>AngeL core developer: <a href="http://www.sikurezza.org/angel">http://www.sikurezza.org/angel
</a>