[ipv6hackers] Pros and Cons of Address Randomization

Mark Smith markzzzsmith at yahoo.com.au
Mon Dec 3 20:00:52 CET 2012

----- Original Message -----
> From: Owen DeLong <owend at he.net>
> To: IPv6 Hackers Mailing List <ipv6hackers at lists.si6networks.com>
> Cc: 
> Sent: Monday, 3 December 2012 8:49 AM
> Subject: Re: [ipv6hackers] Pros and Cons of Address Randomization
>>  The mantra "there's no security in obscurity" is actually 
> derived from Kerckhoff's principle, which was specifically talking about 
> crypto systems, not information or network security in general. If obscurity 
> wasn't a useful security mechanism, natural selection would have killed it 
> off 10 000s of years ago in nature. Since it has been robust enough in nature to 
> survive, it's quite reasonable to use in computer networking.
> I can't agree with that premise. Nature does not kill off that which is to 
> useful. Nature kills off that which is harmful or disadvantageous.

If camouflage had been disadvantageous (i.e. not an advantage), the animals that attempted to use it would have been made extinct, by being caught and eaten by theirĀ predatorsĀ 10 of 000s of years ago. The usefulness of camouflage has also been proven in war.

> For example, 
> the human appendix is not useful, yet we still haven't evolved to not have 
> appendixes. Nature is replete with examples of things which are not useful but 
> persist for whatever reason or even no reason.
> Owen
> _______________________________________________
> Ipv6hackers mailing list
> Ipv6hackers at lists.si6networks.com
> http://lists.si6networks.com/listinfo/ipv6hackers

More information about the Ipv6hackers mailing list