Of all the emotive topics IT generates, security seems to be the one most frequently and irrationally debated. As a general rule people's attention to security is inversely related to the actual risk, value, or need. Companies pour resources into making . . .
Of all the emotive topics IT generates, security seems to be the one most frequently and irrationally debated. As a general rule people's attention to security is inversely related to the actual risk, value, or need. Companies pour resources into making e-mail one hundred thousand-fold more secure than any physical mail process, while employing temporary staff with minimal background checks, thereby leaving the security doors wide open. On the physical side it seems to be generally accepted networks built from copper wires are reasonably secure, while those built from optical fiber are incredibly secure--and all things wireless are as leaky as a sieve.

Perceptively I think it goes something like this: Anything new or misunderstood immediately goes to the top of the security list without any thought or analysis. For example, most people understand that access via paired copper cable means digging it up, climbing a pole, or entering a telco/cable company building, office, or home. Then, with the use of a pair of alligator clips, it is possible to tap the line and extract any information--audio, video, or data--as seen fit. This, by the way, is mostly far from the truth but it will suffice for this discussion.

The link for this article located at ZDNET is no longer available.