From owner-freebsd-hackers  Wed Feb 12 14:44:30 1997
Return-Path: <owner-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id OAA00881
          for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 14:44:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from parkplace.cet.co.jp (parkplace.cet.co.jp [202.32.64.1])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA00874
          for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 14:44:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (michaelh@localhost) by parkplace.cet.co.jp (8.8.5/CET-v2.1) with SMTP id WAA12301; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 22:41:14 GMT
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 07:41:13 +0900 (JST)
From: Michael Hancock <michaelh@cet.co.jp>
To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
cc: dk+@ua.net, snar@lucky.net, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Increasing overall security....
In-Reply-To: <199702121710.KAA00703@phaeton.artisoft.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.95.970213073812.12287A-100000@parkplace.cet.co.jp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 12 Feb 1997, Terry Lambert wrote:

> > To play devil's advocate...
> > 
> > 1) It requires assembler which is harder to understand.  Less people are
> > qualified to review it.  Relying on something harder to understand for
> > security is questionable. 
> 
> This is not a "security through obscurity" issue.  The code is hard to
> understand because of the people trying to understand it, not because
> the difficulty in understanding it is one of the intentional effects.

I didn't say it was "security through obscurity".  Look at TIS's FWTK for
the philosophy I'm talking about. 

Mike Hancock