[Opensim-users] Banning "bad" viewers was Re: Can this be done?

[John Ward]

Karen Palen wrote:
> --- On Tue, 1/12/10, Imago <imagorabbit at gmail.com> wrote: ...
>> But in my opinion even fragile filtering is better then none at all.
>> Because while some could get in the population en masse wouldn't be able
>> to.
> 
> This statement and the responses to it illustrate the reason I changed the
> subject line to a generic one. Sadly you are not the only person who thinks
> this way and it is totally false!

No it's not totally false.  You condemn it by way of a false analogy.

> I hasten to add that this tirade is not specifically directed at you, but
> at the general notion that you express here. You propose a very bad idea
> which is far too highly respected by the naive and inexperienced.
> 
> This approach is far worse than "security by obscurity", rather it is
> merely "feelgood security". By analogy it is like installing dummy fire
> extinguishers rather than ones which work because "at least" the dummy ones
> make everyone feel more secure. I suggest you ask your local fire
> department about the wisdom of dummy fire extinguishers!

In your analogy the "fragile filtering" is the equivalent of a dummy fire 
extinguisher.  Unlike dummy fire extinguishers which don't put out any fires, 
fragile filters, at least the one asked for, would actually block based on how 
a client identifies itself.  It does more then provide good feelings.  The 
situation is more analogous to equipping with too few fire extinguishers 
rather then fake ones.  I suggest you ask your local fire department if you 
would be better off with one fire extinguisher, a fake one, or none!

It's always a danger that a security technique gets assumed to or, worse, 
claimed to do more then it actually does.

John.