The problem is that this technique is not better than nothing at
all. The data isn't just trivially reversible, the instructions to reverse
it are staring readers in the face. Why bother? At least with passwords in
plain text you aren't likely to half-convince yourself about any level of
security. The only sensible thing is to not put your passwords in
the script in the first place!
| [reply] |
Update: Just to make it clearer for the AC, you can never keep scripts or config files hidden from the sysadmins, no matter what. In
order to get to a password, your Perl has to be able to read it. If your Perl can, so can the sysadmin on your box. What this is
supposed to do, is make it easier for the sysadmin not to read your sensitive data. I agree with the false sense of security though.
If you don't want the sysadmins (or others) reading your passwords, then
write your programs to accept the passwords from the commandline or
prompt for them. False security is false security, period.
| [reply] |
I think all the fellow monks and readers here will be more than delighted to read your explanation about how to do this when you code a web app, for instance, that runs in a server managed by a third party and which needs to connect to yet another database server.
How do you propose such problem be tacked?
That said, I think the post makes it very clear that the proposed piece of code is not secure. /I/ happen to think that a well understood level of obscurity is better than no obscurity at all. Leaving your passwords inside the scripts is bad, bad, bad. But obscuring them as shown, at least has the benefit of forcing the sysadmin to do something deliberate to read them, which is /very/ useful to prove intentionality should the need arise.
Finally, I can only interpret your answers (perceived tone and lack of a real identity) as rudeness, which I believe does not have a place in the monastery. If you do not agree to a point, it is usually a well respected practice to elaborate your answers and provide reasonable alternatives. This also allows the comunity to identify your views with an identity, giving you a chance to see for yourself how your opinions fare among the rest of us.
BTW, I just realized that I wrote AC instead of AM in the first update. Sorry about that.
Best regards
-lem, but some call me fokat
| [reply] |
Finally, I can only interpret your answers (perceived tone and lack of a real identity) as rudeness, which I believe does not
have a place in the monastery. If you do not agree to a point, it is usually a well respected practice to elaborate your answers
and provide reasonable alternatives. This also allows the comunity to identify your views with an identity, giving you a
chance to see for yourself how your opinions fare among the rest of us.
I think the fact that your original post sits at -11 on worst nodes of
the week, and neither of the anonymous replies seems to have gone sub-zero
is a reasonable indicator of how things have fared among the rest of
the community.
| [reply] |
