|
|
|
|
|
by Spivak
610 days ago
|
|
Hot take, this is the way it should be. If you want better security then you update the requirements to get your certification. Security by its very nature has a problem of knowing when to stop. There's always better security for an ever increasing amount of money and companies don't sign off on budgets of infinity dollars and projects of indefinite length. If you want security at all you have bound the cost and have well-defined stopping points. And since 5 security experts in a room will have 10 different opinions on what those stopping points should be— what constitutes "good-enough" they only become meaningful when there's industry wide agreement on them. |
|
The budget that it takes to protect against a script kiddy is a tiny fraction of the budget it takes to protect from a professional hacker group, which is a fraction of what it takes to protect from nation state-funded trolls. You can correctly decide that your security is “good enough” one day, but all it takes is a single random news story or internet comment to put a target on your back from someone more powerful, and suddenly that “good enough” isn’t good enough anymore.
The Internet Archive might have been making the correct decision all this time to invest in things that further its mission rather than burning extra money on security, and it seems their security for a long time was “good enough”… until it wasn’t.