[ipv6hackers] Pros and Cons of Address Randomization

[Mark Smith]

----- Original Message -----
> From: Owen DeLong <owend at he.net>
> To: IPv6 Hackers Mailing List <ipv6hackers at lists.si6networks.com>
> Cc: 
> Sent: Tuesday, 4 December 2012 6:33 AM
> Subject: Re: [ipv6hackers] Pros and Cons of Address Randomization
> 
> 
> On Dec 3, 2012, at 11:00 AM, Mark Smith <markzzzsmith at yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  ----- 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 their predators 10 of 000s of years ago. The usefulness of camouflage has 
> also been proven in war.
>> 
> 
> Disadvantageous does not mean not an advantage. If something is not an 
> advantage, it is merely neutral.
> On the other hand, disadvantageous indicates some distance beyond neutral in the 
> opposite direction of advantageous. That is, it is detrimental, not merely 
> neutral.
> 
> I did not say that camouflage was disadvantageous or even that it was not 
> advantageous.
> 
> I did say that the only thing proved by nature not killing it off was that it 
> was not disadvantageous. It could be neutral (of no positive value) and still 
> survive.
> 

Want to revise your argument?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071008102334.htm



> Your stated premise was that if it was not advantageous, it would be killed off. 
> That premise is a distortion.
> 

I was only ever talking about camouflage/obscurity and nature rewarding the trait with survival via natural selection, as it is relevant to this list. You generalised my assertion, distorting it.

> Owen
> 
>>>  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
>>> 
>>  _______________________________________________
>>  Ipv6hackers mailing list
>>  Ipv6hackers at lists.si6networks.com
>>  http://lists.si6networks.com/listinfo/ipv6hackers
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ipv6hackers mailing list
> Ipv6hackers at lists.si6networks.com
> http://lists.si6networks.com/listinfo/ipv6hackers
>