7 ms·
I didn't write it, you're going to have to take that up with the author, on what his intended use case was for his website. Sounds like he did what you said, a
by dimino 10y ago
I didn't write it, you're going to have to take that up with the author, on what his intended use case was for his website.
Sounds like he did what you said, anyway.
- throwanem 10y agoI'm not talking about 'StavrosK's service here. I'm talking about your evaluation of threat models, which seems to include a great big exception around "well, if people aren't using it the way I want them to, then to hell with them."
- dimino 10y agoWell yeah, actually that's how threat models are built -- you can't protect users from themselves, if a user wants to store all their passwords in a greeting card website, in the little "special message to your loved one" field, there's realistically no way you can stop them. Your greeting card website's threat model doesn't include this.
- throwanem 10y agoReductio ad absurdum helps no one, you know.
- dimino 10y agoIt helps illustrate how what you said isn't clear or true.
- throwanem 10y agoDoes it? It seems like you'd need to argue that this notional greeting card website made some specific claim of security around the content of that field.
- dimino 10y agoNo, because Dead Man's Switch doesn't do that either.
- throwanem 10y agoHow do you reach that rather startling conclusion?
- dimino 10y agoNo, I'm done. The author of the tool has come out and explained things to you directly, and if you're going to keep playing games, you can do that with someone else.
- throwanem 10y agoWho's playing games? I've read the comments in this thread from 'StavrosK. You and he don't appear to be talking about the same service, and he's the dev. But if you don't feel any purpose would be served by your continued participation, that's your call to make, of course.
- dimino 10y agoPlease stop.