From 1fe77a920b952fe1cf997c72a0407384e767a039 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Francis Rowe <info@gluglug.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 03:42:08 +0000
Subject: docs/security/t60_security.html Shorten description
 docs/security/x60_security.html Shorten description

---
 docs/security/t60_security.html | 20 ++------------------
 docs/security/x60_security.html | 20 ++------------------
 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-)

(limited to 'docs')

diff --git a/docs/security/t60_security.html b/docs/security/t60_security.html
index eb3db03..5fc96c1 100644
--- a/docs/security/t60_security.html
+++ b/docs/security/t60_security.html
@@ -45,28 +45,12 @@
 	</h1>
 		<p>
 			Most people think of security on the software side: the hardware is important aswell.
-			Hardware security is useful in particular to journalists (or activists in a given movement) who need absolute privacy in their work.
-			It is also generally useful to all those that believe security and privacy are inalienable rights.
-			Security starts with the hardware; crypto and network security come later.
-		</p>
-		<p>
-			Paradoxically, going this far to increase your security also makes you a bigger target.
-			At the same time, it protects you in the case that someone does attack your machine.
-			This paradox only exists while few people take adequate steps to protect yourself: it is your <b>duty</b>
-			to protect yourself, not only for your benefit but to make strong security <i>normal</i> so
-			that those who do need protection (and claim it) are a smaller target against the masses.
-		</p>
-		<p>
-			Even if there are levels of security beyond your ability (technically, financially and so on)
-			doing at least <i>something</i> (what you are able to do) is extremely important.
-			If you use the internet and your computer without protection, attacking you is cheap (some say it is
-			only a few US cents). If everyone (majority of people) use strong security by default,
-			it makes attacks more costly and time consuming; in effect, making them disappear.
+ work.
 		</p>
 		<p>
 			This tutorial deals with reducing the number of devices that have direct memory access that
 			could communicate with inputs/outputs that could be used to remotely
-			command the machine (or leak data).
+			command the machine (or leak data). All of this is purely theoretical for the time being.
 		</p>
 
 	<h1 id="procedure">Disassembly</h1>
diff --git a/docs/security/x60_security.html b/docs/security/x60_security.html
index 33ccb6d..515c8fc 100644
--- a/docs/security/x60_security.html
+++ b/docs/security/x60_security.html
@@ -45,28 +45,12 @@
 	</h1>
 		<p>
 			Most people think of security on the software side: the hardware is important aswell.
-			Hardware security is useful in particular to journalists (or activists in a given movement) who need absolute privacy in their work.
-			It is also generally useful to all those that believe security and privacy are inalienable rights.
-			Security starts with the hardware; crypto and network security come later.
-		</p>
-		<p>
-			Paradoxically, going this far to increase your security also makes you a bigger target.
-			At the same time, it protects you in the case that someone does attack your machine.
-			This paradox only exists while few people take adequate steps to protect yourself: it is your <b>duty</b>
-			to protect yourself, not only for your benefit but to make strong security <i>normal</i> so
-			that those who do need protection (and claim it) are a smaller target against the masses.
-		</p>
-		<p>
-			Even if there are levels of security beyond your ability (technically, financially and so on)
-			doing at least <i>something</i> (what you are able to do) is extremely important.
-			If you use the internet and your computer without protection, attacking you is cheap (some say it is
-			only a few US cents). If everyone (majority of people) use strong security by default,
-			it makes attacks more costly and time consuming; in effect, making them disappear.
+ work.
 		</p>
 		<p>
 			This tutorial deals with reducing the number of devices that have direct memory access that
 			could communicate with inputs/outputs that could be used to remotely
-			command the machine (or leak data).
+			command the machine (or leak data). All of this is purely theoretical for the time being.
 		</p>
 
 	<h1 id="procedure">Disassembly</h1>
-- 
cgit v1.2.3-54-g00ecf