3 ms·
Sure there are exploits, but security isn't binary. Something isn't "truly secure" or "insecure". It's all a matter of how difficult the attack is to pull off,
by toomim 7y ago
Sure there are exploits, but security isn't binary. Something isn't "truly secure" or "insecure". It's all a matter of how difficult the attack is to pull off, or how expensive the exploit is to purchase.
Security is economic. There's a cost/benefit to attack, and to defend.
A good way to measure how secure we actually are is to observe the rate of cryptocurrency theft. How many people do you know with crypto? How many people do you know who have had their computers hacked and crypto stolen? That's how secure you are.
- derefr 7y ago> Security is economic. There's a cost/benefit to attack, and to defend. In some cases, sure. In other cases (e.g. if you're a nation declaring war on the US) you kind of have to assume basically-unlimited cryptanalysis resources and the willingness to prioritize their use to attack your crypto. Is there a name for the discipline of "cybersecurity doctrine as pertains to protecting against unlimited-strength attacks"? Sort of the crypto equivalent of the Airforce One doctrine, of trying to ensure that an individual survives ICBMs aimed directly at their best-predicted location (with the predictive capacity of a state actor.)
- fulafel 7y agoState actors aren't mythical, they're working with budgets same as everyone else, and they don't have "unlimited-strength attacks". They weigh what to burn their zero days on, use social engineering etc low tech attacks when it's more efficient, and so on.