On Thu, 2011-01-20 at 16:35 +0000, Alan Cox wrote: > > It uses the term "control" in the context of interactions between system's > > components, not security of the system. > > Security *is* a part of a set of interactions between system components. > It has to be able to mediate all sorts of complex interactions between > components and decide which are permissible. All those components have > state and all that state has to be managed. > > > I say once again, MORE complexity is LESS security. > > I'd like to see a mathematical proof of that, but I don't believe it's > ever been done. Intutively it is true which is why important systems are > kept simple. Unfortunately simple systems are not capable of being your > desktop. I'd suggest there's something like a "neo-Laffer curve"[1] relating complexity and security. No security at all is pretty insecure (obviously), and overly simple security isn't much better. Vastly involved security systems are likely to be not very secure (because they contain large numbers of defects and/or because they are too hard to manage effectively). In between those extremes, though, the smooth relationship breaks down. There's no "optimal" level of complexity because of dependencies on environmental conditions. > > > That's why complex systems (civilizations, societies, economies, financials, > > computing, etc) are inevitably destined to fail or fall. > > Failure is a necessary part of progress. It's called learning. Without > failure you have stasis. > > Alan > [1] http://everything2.com/title/neo-Laffer+curve -- Matthew Saltzman Clemson University Math Sciences mjs AT clemson DOT edu http://www.math.clemson.edu/~mjs -- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
