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

Mika Bostrom
2005-02-11T08:52:05Z

[-- 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 --]