Re: tlug: telnet: different question + others

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <turnbull@example.com>]

>>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas O'Dowd <tom@example.com> writes:

    Thomas> On Mon, May 29, 2000 at 10:05:07PM +0900, Stephen
    Thomas> J. Turnbull wrote:

    >> No, not malicious.  Just unthinking.  If you don't understand
    >> and describe the security implications, then you may very well
    >> be doing someone, possibly even the perpetrator, a severe
    >> disservice.

    Thomas> I agree with you here, but I still think it was an
    Thomas> interesting problem and would answer it the same way again
    Thomas> and still make the same point that I made at the end of my
    Thomas> mail that he really should be attending class...

I don't take attendance, myself, except when I feel an ethical
obligation to give students personal treatment and have "need to match
names and faces".  I don't give a shit if he's in class.  Can we
forget about this non-problem?

Violating security has other effects, that impact third parties.
That's the ethical issue here.

Insiders always have an implicit responsibility to not weaken system
security.  The argument that the SA should tighten up is absolute
bullshit; as we all know (or should; did you miss Chris's talk?), the
only way to run a tight ship in the face of hostile insiders is to hit
the "off" button and unplug the machine.  Not acceptable.

*plonk*
 

-- 
University of Tsukuba                Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences       Tel/fax: +81 (298) 53-5091
_________________  _________________  _________________  _________________
What are those straight lines for?  "XEmacs rules."
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Next Nomikai Meeting: June 16 (Fri), 19:00   Tengu TokyoEkiMae
Next Technical Meeting: July 8 (Sat) 13:30   Topic: TBA
--------------------------------------------------------------------
more info: http://www.tlug.gr.jp        Sponsor: Global Online Japan