Re: myth of the great transition (was US Defense Department forma lly ad

On Thu, 19 Jun 2003 07:27:03 EDT, "J. Noel Chiappa" said:

> The person who's most in denial around here is you - about how definitively
> the market has, for the moment, chosen IPv4+NAT as the best balance between
> cost and effectiveness.
Actually Noel, I think what he's in denial about is the fact that "the market"
may not have a *CLUE* on how to properly evaluate the balances.

The market has also "chosen" a certain specific MUA for its outstanding ability
to balance security and functionality.  Note that even upper management of
the vendor in question admits that errors were made:

"We really haven't done everything we could to protect our customers. Our
products just aren't engineered for security." -- Microsoft executive Brian
Valentine, on the painful realization that a $100 million, two-month-long
codeathon still hasn't fixed the glaring holes in its software, InfoWorld, 5
September 2002 (from http://www.ditherati.net/archive/2002/36/)

So should we conclude that "the market" doesn't care a rat's posterior about
security? Or should we conclude that it simply didn't realize the size of the
exposure and the downstream costs of lack of security?

pgp4XFuUc9lCC.pgp
Description: PGP signature