Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!nike!ucbcad!ucbvax!hplabs!tektronix!teklds!copper!stevesu
From: stevesu@copper.UUCP (Steve Summit)
Newsgroups: net.unix,net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re: Slaying Gould dragon with a wooden horse
Message-ID: <702@copper.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 1-Nov-86 23:44:21 EST
Article-I.D.: copper.702
Posted: Sat Nov  1 23:44:21 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 4-Nov-86 00:30:01 EST
References: <161@unisec.UUCP>
Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or.
Lines: 19
Keywords: secure unix trojan horse gould
Xref: mnetor net.unix:6119 net.unix-wizards:8569

In article <161@unisec.UUCP>, dpw@unisec.UUCP (Darryl Wagoner) writes:
> 
> The question I have for the net is: Is using a trojan horse a legit way
> to break into a system?  What is your opinion?

You know those stupid logic problems where you're on an island,
and some of the natives always tell the truth, while some of them
always lie, but you can't tell them apart, and you're supposed to
ask an unknown native one question which will let you determine
which of two paths leads to some village?  Calling a trojan horse
an "illegitimate" way of breaking into a system is like getting
mad at a crafty native for giving you some kind of distruthfully
honest answer which causes you to walk down the wrong path.

What would Gould have considered a "legitimate" way of breaking
in?  What does a "legitimate way of breaking in" even mean?

                                         Steve Summit
                                         tektronix!copper!stevesu