3 ms·
This feels like a no-true-scotsman argument. A true security-minded person understands the benefits of TLS, and if you don't, then you're not qualified to under
by Karrot_Kream 7y ago
This feels like a no-true-scotsman argument. A true security-minded person understands the benefits of TLS, and if you don't, then you're not qualified to understand security.
- kerkeslager 7y agoI'd view it as more tautological than that. "If you don't understand security then you don't understand security" isn't really controversial.
- at_a_remove 7y ago"If you have not yet attained Buddhahood, you cannot understand the value of enlightenment." is also a non-controversial tautology, but it also doesn't leave any room for anyone to do anything else.
- kerkeslager 7y agoIf you're being paid to secure a system, there isn't room for you to not secure the system.
- at_a_remove 7y agoThe most secure system, naturally, being one that is turned off with its network connection desoldered. At last, nirvana!
- kerkeslager 7y agoSo clever! But, obviously we're talking about making a good-faith effort to secure servers while allowing them to provide their intended functions. Refusing to implement HTTPS because you don't know how to use Certbot isn't that.
- at_a_remove 7y agoAs stated, Certbot wouldn't work in the case I mentioned.
- kerkeslager 7y agoBased on your description, it would work just fine, you're just prevented by contract from using it.