3 ms·
It isn't "due to C." This is a popular meme on HN, but it's incorrect in its focus. If anything replaces C I'm skeptical that more than a shift in the characte
by sidlls 9y ago
It isn't "due to C." This is a popular meme on HN, but it's incorrect in its focus.
If anything replaces C I'm skeptical that more than a shift in the character of the attack surface (rather than the area) will occur. That is, there will be just as much to attack, it's just that the attacks will require alternate methods. Some attacks will be harder to employ, some less, but on average probably about the same quantity and seriousness will occur.
- staticassertion 9y ago> It isn't "due to C." This is a popular meme on HN, but it's incorrect in its focus. You can call it a meme but that doesn't change my opinion. > Some attacks will be harder to employ, some less, but on average probably about the same quantity and seriousness will occur. This is unfounded, I don't really know how to respond to it other than that nothing has ever really worked this way in security. You don't get less secure in one area because you were more secure in another.
- sidlls 9y ago> You don't get less secure in one area because you were more secure in another. I agree with you, however that doesn't address what I actually wrote.
- staticassertion 9y ago"Some attacks will be harder to employ, some less" - I'm interpreting this sentence that way.