nemo_outis wrote:

> Chris Lawrence <news03@holosys.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
> news:Pine.WNT.4.63.0609112310540.3792@holodeck3.ho losys.wlan:
>
> ...
> >> Kerckhoff's principle recognizes that every secret is a potential
> >> point of failure, and such points of failure should therefore be
> >> minimized by "concentrating" all secrecy at one point, the key, which
> >> can then be guarded without diffusing one's resources. A case of
> >> accepting the violation of another principle - no single point of
> >> failure - but compensating by guarding the one secret (i.e., the
> >> potential point of failure) well.
> >
> > Exactly, "guarding" being the operative word, almost always coming
> > down to a case of hiding something, for example a sequence of
> > characters in your head, or keeping a car key separate from the car.
>
>
> While hiding is the primary mechanism for most ordinary folk, there is an

Putting the keys in your pocket when you park your car isn't "hiding".
It's physical security. 99% of the time people will know or can guess
exactly where they are.

> alternative: prevention of dislosure by physical security including safes,
> vaults, and guards (a literal application of guarding).

Those things are certainly physical security, but so is keeping
something on your person, or in your house. You're guarding it, not
hiding it.