5 ms·
There's no such thing as a multiple SPOF; that's called a multiple point of failure, which is a good thing. Security is a battle of convenience. If your threat
by prophesi 8y ago
There's no such thing as a multiple SPOF; that's called a multiple point of failure, which is a good thing.
Security is a battle of convenience. If your threat model is state actors, then it may well be worth the inconvenience to have your data secured in several different locations, running Tails OS on everything, scrapping your smartphone, and so on.
- ergothus 8y ago> that's called a multiple point of failure, which is a good thing. Totally leaving aside the argument you were in - multiple single points of failure are bad, and very different than the opposite of a single point of failure. Having a SPOF means one thing will take you down. Having multiple SPOF means any one of those can take you down. Lack of any SPOF means no one thing will take you down, it will require multiple problems. 3 distinct options.
- prophesi 8y agoAhh, you're totally right. I'll scratch out my post so I don't spread misinformation. Edit: hm, too much time elapsed for me to edit the parent post