Controversial Paper (old news really)
Posted: Sun Jul 21, 2013 1:10 pm
Most of us are familiar with, or at least aware of Matt Blaze's paper, "Safecracking for the Computer Scientist".
What I was not aware of is the uproar it created when first released to the public years ago. Imagine that?! lol
Safe-makers & locksmiths tried to smash him publicly as well as attack him legally. Matt would NOT budge
Obviously they were unsuccessful, as the paper still stands alone in the public domain, FREE to anyone who seeks it.
Need I even say where I stand on the matter? lol. People hoarding this shit as if it were some sort of holy fuckin' grail
or something. As if only a few 'worthy' elite are deserving of it. It shouldn't bother me... but it does. So I'll admit,
attempting to read this this (& the comments that followed) with an un-bias point of view was difficult.
Those opposing this paper going public had two main arguments:
1) That Matt's paper would threaten they're profession that they worked so hard to build.
2) That it would negatively impact, and greatly lessen security for the community at large.
As hard as I tried, I cannot find any validity within either of these points.
Instead, both seem to be based on one of two things: FEAR and/or EGO.
But hey, opinions are like assholes... everyone's got one. That's just mine.
What I was not aware of is the uproar it created when first released to the public years ago. Imagine that?! lol
Safe-makers & locksmiths tried to smash him publicly as well as attack him legally. Matt would NOT budge
Obviously they were unsuccessful, as the paper still stands alone in the public domain, FREE to anyone who seeks it.
Need I even say where I stand on the matter? lol. People hoarding this shit as if it were some sort of holy fuckin' grail
or something. As if only a few 'worthy' elite are deserving of it. It shouldn't bother me... but it does. So I'll admit,
attempting to read this this (& the comments that followed) with an un-bias point of view was difficult.
Those opposing this paper going public had two main arguments:
1) That Matt's paper would threaten they're profession that they worked so hard to build.
2) That it would negatively impact, and greatly lessen security for the community at large.
As hard as I tried, I cannot find any validity within either of these points.
Instead, both seem to be based on one of two things: FEAR and/or EGO.
But hey, opinions are like assholes... everyone's got one. That's just mine.