> I don't think we have even a theoretical plan for fixing computer security. I think we do, but the implications of it are terrifying, overwhelming and just

> I don't think we have even a theoretical plan for fixing computer security. I think we do, but the implications of it are terrifying, overwhelming and just make people shrug and say "That'll never happen". How I see it there are two sides. Those who want a functioning technological society with all the benefits we believe in as hackers - transport, medicine, communications, planning... For that we'll have no choice but to make computers secure. That side is "society". In the other corner are those who do not want computers to be secure (despite what they say). They benefit from insecurity. These are; - Criminals. - Governments. - Industry. They are not aligned and fight amongst themselves. Only the criminals are honest in that they don't pretend to want secure computing. Governments and industry want secure computing for themselves, but not for the others, or for society. For secure computing to ever happen three well organised, well funded and determined groups would have to lose against a disorganised, distributed, and poor remainder. There are two things on our side to give us hope; - That the enemy of my enemy is a temporary friend. - Mathematics.