3 ms·
Security through obscurity, not a valid security plan. Regarding things like hacking into prominent accounts, DDOS/DOS attacks obscurity means it isn't worth t
by matt_s 6y ago
Security through obscurity, not a valid security plan. Regarding things like hacking into prominent accounts, DDOS/DOS attacks obscurity means it isn't worth the effort, like the author points out.
- yogthos 6y agoThe article isn't talking about security through obscurity at all. What it says is that Mastodon doesn't have a single point of failure like Twitter because it's a distributed network. With Twitter you can hack the entire network by compromising a single employee into giving you their credentials. With Mastodon you'd have to exploit each individual instance independently. This is orders of magnitude more effort.
- AdrianB1 6y agoThis is what suggests that: "For the time being, Mastodon remains a small enough presence in the social media sphere that this kind of attack hasn't been worth the time."
- yogthos 6y agoSure, however the more important point here is that this kind of attack is fundamentally more difficult to carry out and less effective than it would be against a centralized service.
- matt_s 6y agoYes, this is what I was referencing from the author. Git is decentralized version control. I would bet a site like Github protects itself from mass attacks because of its popularity. It has nothing to do with decentralized software. If a specific Mastodon node becomes super popular then it should have a plan to protect itself from these types of attacks.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]