You are right.
Remember Jeremy Clarksons case ? TV presenter Jeremy Clarkson has lost
money after publishing his bank details in his newspaper column. After
this he wrote: "I was wrong and I have been punished".
Regards
Zacheusz

2008/6/19 jesse michael <jesse.michael (at) comcast (dot) net [email concealed]>:
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 11:08:17PM +0200, Zacheusz Siedlecki wrote:
>> I think it's not about details. It's about statistic and probality of
>> intrusion (Bruce is god at maths). It's difficult to strike a good
>> balance between security and usability of system. Bruce found it for
>> his home network. Attack on desktop from Internet is more probable
>> than script-kiddie-wardriver in neighborhood so it's not worth a
>> thing. Ithink it's about ideology also (Linux vs Windows, close vs
>> open).
>
> Sure, statistically, the average person isn't likely to have someone
> attack their wireless network like that, but if there's something
> unusual about the target (e.g. you're very well known in the security
> community and have essentially dared people to compromise your network),
> the usual threat/risk calculations will need to be adjusted.
>
> I fully expect to read another news article at some point in the
> future about Schneier ending up talking to the police about having
> his network compromised because he's just advertised to the world that
> he has not even bothered to taken trivial steps to secure it.
>
> There's an argument that could be made that by leaving the network
> unprotected, he has plausible deniability if illegal acts are made
> from his network connection, but that hasn't been tested in court
> as far as I know, and I'd rather not be a test case for such things.
>
>

[ reply ]