4 ms·
Yeah, but couldn't you also simply disconnect the beacons with a wirecutter? I mean, every technical system can be shutdown and will shutdown sometimes, isn't
by bpfrh 7y ago
Yeah, but couldn't you also simply disconnect the beacons with a wirecutter?
I mean, every technical system can be shutdown and will shutdown sometimes, isn't that a inherent weakness of such a system?
if that beacon does not respond disable automation for that part?
- Fnoord 7y agoSure, but I was thinking about temporary disabling (like a temporary, reversible DoS). If you can temporarily disable something, it is more difficult to find the culprit, and the impact is higher because of the surprise element. If something is permanently disabled, you fix it right away. Just like bullying: bullying itself is annoying, but what I found annoying is the inconsistency of it. At some point, my bullies were friendly, at another point once more bullying. If it were permanently on-going and not sneaky, they'd be found out by e.g. teachers long ago already.
- bpfrh 7y agoAhh, yes that would be a problem. On the other hand, wouldn't a ddos be visible in the logs? Logs should be checked centrally anyway, so a 30 second flood of messages should be visible. But in the end, you are right that it will be hard to do this the right way.