On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 11:46:48AM -0600, Phil Mendelsohn wrote: > On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 11:14:55AM -0600, Troy.A Johnson wrote: > > Interesting. > > > > Not what I would expect, though. > > > > Support for the web as a read only service, > > and total buy-in to cable ISP policies(/shackles). > > > > I want customers like you! ;-) > > All trolls aside, here's a (very) idealistic Linux scenario: > > Assume momentarily that the reason for limiting services is not just > bandwidth, but security and ISPs wanting to limit their liability for > millions of M$ users having vulnerable boxes open to the world, how > about the following policy: > > "No servers, HTTP, FTP, yada, yada, will be allowed *except* those > that run on a demonstrably secure platform." Security is a process, not a product. There is no demonstrably secure platform, except one that is unplugged and locked into a safe 10k feet under the sea. florin -- "If it's not broken, let's fix it till it is." 41A9 2BDE 8E11 F1C5 87A6 03EE 34B3 E075 3B90 DFE4 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 232 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://shadowknight.real-time.com/pipermail/tclug-list/attachments/20020116/390d241f/attachment.pgp