4 ms·
Of course you'd get more security. Analogy: It's like your hanging on a rope and also add a safety net. If the rope breaks, you only fall on the safety net ins
by julian-klode 8y ago
Of course you'd get more security.
Analogy: It's like your hanging on a rope and also add a safety net. If the rope breaks, you only fall on the safety net instead of the ground.
All software has bugs, so if you add two buggy security solutions, you might only be able to exploit a bug in one, but the other still gives you the safety.
- kiallmacinnes 8y agoThat's not always true though, and it can be really hard to tell if a particular combination is going to make things better or worse. e.g. the "Breach" HTTPS+Compression vulnerability. To continue your analogy: The rope gets tangled in the safety net, forcing you to jump or proceed up with a loose rope, because you can no longer move the rope..
- marcosdumay 8y agoThis is not the physical world. Digital security strength is measured on orders of magnitude, and two mechanisms providing security with very different orders of magnitude do not add in any practical sense.
- julian-klode 8y agoIf you've seen today's bug yesterday, or carefully looked at the previous CVEs, you would have seen that https would have significantly reduced the probability of exploitability.
- diffeomorphism 8y ago> All software has bugs, so if you add two buggy security solutions, you might only be able to exploit a bug in one, but the other still gives you the safety. I am unconvinced about the last part. More commonly an exploit in either will cause security to fail, so adding more steps just adds more attack surface and leads to less security.