I understand what you mean, and don't really disagree, but that is just semantics.

Exactly, it is just semantics. People often misuse the term "Security through Obscurity" and it generates a lot of confusion. This leads to the attitude that you shouldn't hide any information about your system and that obscurity is a bad thing when it comes to security. Both of which are not true.

From the Jargon file on "Security through Obscurity":

A term applied by hackers to most OS vendors' favorite way of coping with security holes -- namely, ignoring them, documenting neither any known holes nor the underlying security algorithms, trusting that nobody will find out about them and that people who do find out about them won't exploit them.

As you can see, this has very little to do with many common usages of the term.

And no, I will not battle you over it, really.

Well that's no fun ;-).

This leads to the attitude that you shouldn't hide any information about your system and that obscurity is a bad thing when it comes to security.

This we can definetely agree on - this is not what I want. I've seen some people advocate this, and I think that is downright stupid. The mere fact that a hidden item might be discovered definetely doesn't mean that it should be paraded on display. It is like saying a protected jewel might be stolen, so we might as well give it away. On the other hand, those that draw that conclusion from those arguments... well, they will have a hard time keeping security, so hopefully evolution will prevail on this one. :)

this has very little to do with many common usages of the term.

I disagree. The common usage is the one I used, in this context. Or at least, that is my perception. And as far as that goes, Your Kilometrage May Vary (YKMV). ;-)

Well that's no fun ;-).

Ah darn it, Let's fight! *wide grin*

---

You have moved into a dark place.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.