|
|
|
|
|
by pton_xd
493 days ago
|
|
I've always heard that "security through obscurity" is discouraged because, well, there's no stopping someone from digging in and figuring it out. However in this case it seems somewhat successful in that the author was not able to decrypt the packets directly. The article says that "while it might seem feasible to reimplement these functions in Python without running the client, several factors make this approach impractical" and then lists some reasons like the lookup tables changing, chunk layouts getting shuffled, etc. Is that all it takes to thwart decrypting the packets? Even though, presumably, you have access to all those lookup tables and chunk layouts somewhere in the client? Is it just too much effort to piece together how it works? I'd be curious to hear more specifics on how exactly Riot was able to make reverse engineering this so impractical. Great article! |
|
This should tell you enough about the person.
Obscurity very often increases security. The question is - by how much?
It is fine to add obscurity AS ANOTHER layer.
It is the same story as the "open source software is safer"
No. If you are open source & you have significant community then it is, otherwise closed source is harder to attack.