|
|
|
|
|
by ang_cire
402 days ago
|
|
A better analogy would be if you see a bunch of people walking around in faulty stab vests, and you tell them that the vests are faulty before they are recalled and replaced by the company. In which case, telling everyone those vests are actually not going to stop a knife, is a very good thing to do. > I did not make the argument that obscurity is security... But that doesn't mean non-obscurity automatically improves security. ... egad. Yes, having information doesn't mean people will do the right thing with it, but you're not everyone's mommy/god/guardian. People should have the choice themselves about what actions they want to take, and what's in their own best interests. And obscuring the information that they need to make that choice, in the name of not making them less secure, is, ipso facto, asserting that the obscuring is keeping them more secure than they otherwise might be. So yes, you absolutely are arguing for obscurity as security. |
|
I'm arguing that unveiling the obscurity can lead to attacks that wouldn't have happened otherwise, and you are partially to blame for those if they happen (which is true). I am not saying it was "more secure" before the disclosure. Just that, in the world afterwards, you must take responsibility for everyone knowing, including people who did not know before and abuse that knowledge.