Re: the "Turing Attack" (was: Sabotaged PaXtest)

[bostik@bostik.iki.fi (Mika Bostrom)]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1442 bytes --]

  [Posted only on LKML, this has become humour.]

On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 09:03:00PM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 04:21:49PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > * Jakob Oestergaard <jakob@unthought.net> wrote:
> > > > PaX cannot be a 'little bit pregnant'. (you might argue that exec-shield
> > > > is in the 6th month, but that does not change the fundamental
> > > > end-result: a child will be born ;-)
> > > 
> > > Yes and no.  I would think that the chances of a child being born are
> > > greater if the pregnancy has lasted successfully up until the 6th month,
> > > compared to a first week pregnancy.
> > > 
> > > I assume you get my point  :)
> > 
> > the important point is: neither PaX nor exec-shield can claim _for sure_
> > that no child will be born, and neither can claim virginity ;-)
> > 
> > [ but i guess there's a point where a bad analogy must stop ;) ]
> 
> Yeah, sex is *usually* a much more pleasant experience than having your
> machine broken into, even if it results in a pregnancy. =)

  I'll bite, before anyone else says it...

  It can not be a mere coincidence that the most rigorous security
audits include penetration testing.

-- 
 Mika Boström      +358-40-525-7347  \-/  "World peace will be achieved
 Bostik@iki.fi    www.iki.fi/bostik   X    when the last man has killed
 Security freak, and proud of it.    /-\   the second-to-last." -anon?

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]