Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by stavros 45 days ago
These things are always a cost/benefit calculation. Obscurity increases the cost, and it works well enough at that. It doesn't increase the cost by a lot, so it's not a super effective countermeasure, but it usually has a positive ROI because it's cheap to add.

Your complexity argument does make sense, but that also factors into the ROI calculation. I'd say obscurity is beneficial much more often than ~never.

1 comments

> These things are always a cost/benefit calculation.

Yes, without a doubt! Just like all security measures. The difference being with real security measures, the security increases faster than the negative side effects. When using obscurity as a security measure, the gain is marginal at best, and even when done "perfectly" the down sides are significant.

> but it usually has a positive ROI because it's cheap to add.

My experience has always been the inverse. It is cheap to add, but more often it does nothing meaningful to the security of the system.

> I'd say obscurity is beneficial much more often than ~never.

Do you work in security? I used to think so too, back before I had to teach security fundamentals to the average software engineer.

To be clear, none of the above should be read as a refutation. I don't disagree with your opinion, per se. But in my experience, I've been frustrated many times when some non-security expert tries to add some kind of obscurity, but can't remember a single where I've thought "thank god we made this thing much more complicated". Sample bias to be sure... but if it was actually useful, I would assume I would have encountered a single time where I was glad for the added obscurity.

It's true that it's possible to increase the security of the system by adding some layers of obscurity. But not only have I've never seen it be worth the cost. The same is true about turning the system off... so when doing the cost/benefit calculation it's important to remember and account for the fact that going by history, it's never added meaningful security, and trying to work around it is almost always annoying.

I don't work in security now, but I have. I'm talking about things like changing the default SSH port from 22, not just making things complicated for the sake of it. I think this hinges on each person's past experiences, rather than the argument itself.