Re: Good security related article
From: QHenrick_Hellstr=F6m_=5BStreamSec=5D=22?= (henrick_at_REMOVEstreamsec.se)
Date: 05/14/04
- Previous message: Mike Williams (TeamB): "Re: service configuration"
- In reply to: JQP: "Re: Good security related article"
- Next in thread: Kevin Powick: "Re: Good security related article"
- Reply: Kevin Powick: "Re: Good security related article"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 15:17:10 +0200
JQP wrote:
> Of all the security issues out there; virii, worms, warez, etc.; what
> percentage of the actual recorded cases can be attributed to a direct
> cryptographic attack? My guess is less than 1%.
You might be right, but I also think that might be because you didn't
ask the appropriate question. A "direct cryptographic attack" would only
happen *if* the system used cryptography in the first place, and it
would only be successful if bad cryptography was used.
The majority of such attacks that actually take place (because there is
no better attack and the attack has a chance of being successful) are
probably password cracking of people's own old files/drives.
Still, a more relevant question would be in how many cases cryptography,
had it been used, would have prevented an attack or made it harder,
and in how many cases cryptography was used and actually prevented an
attack. The percentage would in such case probably be higher.
It would still be low, though, because of the vast number of attacks
against Win32 PCs that are directly connected to the Internet without a
firewall, and operated by people who use MSOE and open executable
attachments without thinking. ;)
- Previous message: Mike Williams (TeamB): "Re: service configuration"
- In reply to: JQP: "Re: Good security related article"
- Next in thread: Kevin Powick: "Re: Good security related article"
- Reply: Kevin Powick: "Re: Good security related article"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|