[ipv6hackers] Pros and Cons of Address Randomization
markzzzsmith at yahoo.com.au
Mon Dec 3 21:26:29 CET 2012
----- Original Message -----
> From: Owen DeLong <owend at he.net>
> To: IPv6 Hackers Mailing List <ipv6hackers at lists.si6networks.com>
> 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>
>>> 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
>>> derived from Kerckhoff's principle, which was specifically talking
>>> crypto systems, not information or network security in general. If
>>> 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
> I did not say that camouflage was disadvantageous or even that it was not
> 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
Want to revise your argument?
> 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.
>>> 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.
>>> Ipv6hackers mailing list
>>> Ipv6hackers at lists.si6networks.com
>> Ipv6hackers mailing list
>> Ipv6hackers at lists.si6networks.com
> Ipv6hackers mailing list
> Ipv6hackers at lists.si6networks.com
More information about the Ipv6hackers