4 ms·
Good, thought-provoking article, but use with caution. I've seen security through obscurity misused too often as the only line of defence, or as a "temporary"
by xfz 6y ago
Good, thought-provoking article, but use with caution.
I've seen security through obscurity misused too often as the only line of defence, or as a "temporary" stop-gap that outlives its usefulness. It can lead to a false sense of security.
Such measures also do not tend to keep up with changes as attacks become more sophisticated or cheaper to carry out.
You also need to make sure that there are no unintended consequences - does your non-standard configuration make it harder to apply upgrades? Does your own penetration testing also scan all ports, or is it only going to discover weak servers running on port 22 on your network?
That said, I would do the type of things mentioned in the article as an "added bonus", but try to exclude them from my overall security evaluation (either rough mental model or formal threat model).
- 2ion 6y ago> I've seen security through obscurity misused too often as the only line of defence, or as a "temporary" stop-gap that outlives its usefulness. It can lead to a false sense of security. Exactly. > we need for some reason make this development-stage service publicly available on the internet, and it's connected to a lot of our services internally, but we can implement AAA only later and we need it now. No issue publishing it on an obscure route/IP/domain name? And the setup stays online for 5 years.