Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 24th Apr 2012 17:39 UTC
Permalink for comment 515777
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-09-06
"some genius will eventually" is already addressed by the quote.
Security is a moving target; an ongoing process. It's not an option in the settings or magic paint you apply once and forget.
The quote is a moving target; "if your data can not be stored this way it's not safe enough to store anywhere". There is nothing in that idea which refers to a static state of affairs.
Your data will naturally move from "safe enough" to "not safe enough" as tech and cryptography continue to evolve. Based on the quote, that is when you update your strategy too move your data from "not safe enough" back to "safe enough". I don't think someone neglecting there stored data invalidates the quote at all.
The quote also does not suggest one habitually store data with one's enemy. It suggests that if the data is not safe enough to consider doing this then it's not safe enough to be stored anywhere. In other words, wherever you store your data, make it safe enough that your worst enemy could have direct access to it and still not get in.