![]() I'd argue the same for soccer ball, soccer + ball tells you what it does, it doesn't tell you what it is. 23:23 z Per hydrostatic pressure relief system, the concept is a general one, but it refers to a specific thing. It's common because it is self-explanatory. 22:59 zĬan someone explain why they consider this idiomatic? (Equinox's reasons don't seem to answer that.) Why the idiomatic label? Although often found in the context of computer security, it only has its literal meaning. The second definition implies (mistakenly) that there are no vulnerabilities because the system is secret.- Dmol 08:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC) Reply Īnd security by obscurity? - Michael Z. The first definition implies that it is know that a system has faults, but they will be hidden to obtain (or attempt to abtain) security. (Arguably, computer security overlaps cryptography anyway: cf. The basic criticism of security through obscurity was laid out in the 19th century as one of Kerckhoffs' principles, which summed it up as - a cryptosystem should be secure even if everything about the system, except the key, is public knowledge.- Dmol 00:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC) Reply This term doesn't mean different things in cryptography and computer security. Cryptography and computing are different things, with crytography having been around for 2,000 years. 23:33 z There is a definite need for a separate definition. Mglovesfun ( talk) 10:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC) Reply Really a separate sense? Here's a book that gives both kinds of examples, and neatly includes them in the definition “all methods of security in which the strength of the security relies on a secret that is kept secret only by chance.” - Michael Z. This might need a usage note to the effect that the term is normally used by critics, rather than proponents.- Dmol 07:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC) Reply Keep, as a context specific term, it's more than the sum of its parts. I've added a second definition, specific to cryptography, that of relying on an opponent's ignorance of a security system or cipher as a means of protecting the system. ![]() Commonly used set phrase in computing security books and articles. DCDuring TALK 00:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC) Reply Keep. ![]() We may have gotten rid of some of the worst, but chaff remains. I wouldn't mind reviewing other possibly weak entries among our purported idioms. But, rhyme-shmyme, not all somewhat-commonly-used rhyming collocations are idioms that meet CFI. Eq: The rhyme may account for why it is a catchphrase. As a translation target? CI: Any phrase, idiomatic or not, denotes a specific range of possible meanings. I don't see how we would help users by having it. It's meaning seems clear given the context. Irwin 23:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Reply It seems more like a catchphrase than a true idiom. I'm not sure exactly how we prove its idiomaticity though. It may be citable as hyphenated, it's often used in quotes around the three words. ![]() Equinox ◑ 23:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Reply keep, "security through obscurity is not security" "+security+through+obscurity"&ei=pZ7HS8X3FqeeygSSr8iYCA&client=firefox-a&cd=7#v=onepage&q=" security through obscurity"&f=false - as Equinox says, it's a unit that denotes a specific meaning. We have dozens of pseudo-idiomatic phrases that are far less worthy of an entry than this. DCDuring TALK 21:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Reply It is idiomatic because this specific rhyming phrase is common, and used as a unit, among computer scientists. Delete seems to have been another ill-informed snap judgment by me. Yet another waste of user/contributor time, energy, and bandwidth. 4) + obscurity (2) doesn't appear idiomatic to me. ![]() Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.Ĭomputer security (2) + through (prep. This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. The following information passed a request for deletion. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |