Re: Hacking the worlds largest mall
And related to this:
Any security measure that is said to be, "ok because it keeps out the amateurs," has the obvious problem in suggesting that it does not keep out the experienced.
Beyond the above, there is an even more serious risk in the assumption that something is, "ok because it keeps out amateurs." We live in a world where technological innovations appear every day, and the number of people working on such innovations is increasing.
Todays techniques to, "protect," a system from today's amateur is just one automation innovation away from being a tool in the toolbox of tomorrow's amateur.
(If it is not obvious, I am agreeing with Thorn, but trying to emphasize often overlooked risks with the assumption that, security by obscurity is often good. Though there is different packaging, the, "protection," of systems using the above is yet another example of, "security by obscurity," which is often not security at all.)
There is something that works to the benefit of people looking to keep, "the bad guys out." When a person learns more about how to defeat systems, and violate system security, they become more educated and more experienced. At some point, many will consider their own personal risk, in losing their freedom and continued opportunity to explore the same systems with which they share intimacy in their day-to-day lives. At this point, many will choose to not risk their own personal freedoms for, "shits and giggles." Those lacking such wisdom are cursed with hubris as their ego persuades them to take risks which will ultimately cause them to forfeit future opportunities in exploration.
There is a great deal of wisdom in understanding of the economist's opportunity cost. :-)
Originally posted by Thorn
View Post
Any security measure that is said to be, "ok because it keeps out the amateurs," has the obvious problem in suggesting that it does not keep out the experienced.
Beyond the above, there is an even more serious risk in the assumption that something is, "ok because it keeps out amateurs." We live in a world where technological innovations appear every day, and the number of people working on such innovations is increasing.
Todays techniques to, "protect," a system from today's amateur is just one automation innovation away from being a tool in the toolbox of tomorrow's amateur.
(If it is not obvious, I am agreeing with Thorn, but trying to emphasize often overlooked risks with the assumption that, security by obscurity is often good. Though there is different packaging, the, "protection," of systems using the above is yet another example of, "security by obscurity," which is often not security at all.)
There is something that works to the benefit of people looking to keep, "the bad guys out." When a person learns more about how to defeat systems, and violate system security, they become more educated and more experienced. At some point, many will consider their own personal risk, in losing their freedom and continued opportunity to explore the same systems with which they share intimacy in their day-to-day lives. At this point, many will choose to not risk their own personal freedoms for, "shits and giggles." Those lacking such wisdom are cursed with hubris as their ego persuades them to take risks which will ultimately cause them to forfeit future opportunities in exploration.
There is a great deal of wisdom in understanding of the economist's opportunity cost. :-)
Comment