2 ms·
I do it. My wife does it. My sister does it. The cameras at Bloomberg all had shutters, and I used it there as well. It's just good (paranoid?) OPSEC to def
by vonmoltke 7y ago
I do it. My wife does it. My sister does it. The cameras at Bloomberg all had shutters, and I used it there as well. It's just good (paranoid?) OPSEC to defend against remote takeover exploits.
- pc86 7y agoHow does tape over a camera prevent remote takeover specifically?
- vonmoltke 7y agoIt doesn't, obviously, and I never said it did. It prevents the camera from being used to surreptitiously record useful information when a machine has been remotely compromised. It's the same reason nothing with a transmitter is permitted in classified areas without specific authorization. Preventing a remote takeover is effectively impossible, but these steps reduce the usefulness of such an action (which is part of the defense against them).
- pc86 7y ago> > > It's just good (paranoid?) OPSEC to defend against remote takeover exploits. > > > [Camera shutters are] just good (paranoid?) OPSEC to defend against remote takeover exploits. > > > [Camera shutters are] ... good ... [defense] against remote takeover exploits. Clearly I misunderstood your intent, but the comment does seem to indicate what I thought.
- vonmoltke 7y agoNothing there says or indicates anything about preventing takeovers. Preventing is a strict subset of defending against.
- josephv 7y agoPhysical controls can be as effective as technical.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]