4 ms·

An argument against obscurity is that it adds additional pains for your "regular" users (as in developers/3rd party developers/app developers) while being a sma

An argument against obscurity is that it adds additional pains for your "regular" users (as in developers/3rd party developers/app developers) while being a small deterrent against unauthorised users (as they will be able to circumvent the "obscurity layer" and replicate their method to other bad actors). edit: In the first sentence "against" is not what I wanted to say: what I wanted to say is that it "downgrades it's effectiveness". I agree that obscurity can and sometimes should be a layer of security.

PragmaticPulp 6y ago
> An argument against obscurity is that it adds additional pains for your "regular" users (as in developers/3rd party developers/app developers) No one should be applying obscurity to public-facing APIs or anything for which documentation is widely distributed outside the company. A better example would be Snapchat's intense and always evolving obfuscation strategies: https://hot3eed.github.io/snap_part1_obfuscations.html https://hot3eed.github.io/snap_part1_obfuscations.html Even though someone took the challenge to de-obfuscate most (but not all) of the protections, just look at how much effort is required for anyone else to even follow that work. More importantly, consider how much effort is required relative to other platforms. It's enough of a pain that spammers and abusers are likely to choose other platforms to attack.
- gowld 6y ago
  When security is totally impossible because there is no way to distinguish a trusted party from an adversary, obscurity is the only hope.
  - austincheney 6y ago
    If you cannot distinguish a trusted party from a malicious party everything is then potentially malicious. This is why we have certificates, certificate revocation, and trust authorities.
    - blackflame7000 6y ago
      And that works great until a trust authority gets compromised. It's for this reason why the US DoD has it's own root certificate authorities and thus many military websites actually look like they have invalid https certs. Browsers don't ship with DoD root certs installed as trusted.
      - austincheney 6y ago
        Yeah, I am on a DODIN as I write this. In the civilian world a CA falls back on a decentralized scheme called Web of Trust which allows CAs to recipricate certs from other CAs and invalidate other CAs as necessary. The DOD chose to create their own CA scheme originally for financial reasons in that over a long enough time line new infrastructure pays for itself with expanded capabilities while minimizing operation costs dependent upon an outside service provider. This was before CACs were in use. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_of_trust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_of_trust
        blackflame7000 6y ago
        Thanks for the additional info, I didnt know (but probably should have assumed) that finance was the primary motivator. I just had to implement CAC authentication for a webapp and they still use their own CAs for client-side certs aka cac’s so it seems like it was a pretty savy investment at the time that’s not going away anytime soon

PragmaticPulp 6y ago

> An argument against obscurity is that it adds additional pains for your "regular" users (as in developers/3rd party developers/app developers) No one should be applying obscurity to public-facing APIs or anything for which documentation is widely distributed outside the company. A better example would be Snapchat's intense and always evolving obfuscation strategies: https://hot3eed.github.io/snap_part1_obfuscations.html https://hot3eed.github.io/snap_part1_obfuscations.html Even though someone took the challenge to de-obfuscate most (but not all) of the protections, just look at how much effort is required for anyone else to even follow that work. More importantly, consider how much effort is required relative to other platforms. It's enough of a pain that spammers and abusers are likely to choose other platforms to attack.

gowld 6y ago
When security is totally impossible because there is no way to distinguish a trusted party from an adversary, obscurity is the only hope.
- austincheney 6y ago
  If you cannot distinguish a trusted party from a malicious party everything is then potentially malicious. This is why we have certificates, certificate revocation, and trust authorities.
  - blackflame7000 6y ago
    And that works great until a trust authority gets compromised. It's for this reason why the US DoD has it's own root certificate authorities and thus many military websites actually look like they have invalid https certs. Browsers don't ship with DoD root certs installed as trusted.
    - austincheney 6y ago
      Yeah, I am on a DODIN as I write this. In the civilian world a CA falls back on a decentralized scheme called Web of Trust which allows CAs to recipricate certs from other CAs and invalidate other CAs as necessary. The DOD chose to create their own CA scheme originally for financial reasons in that over a long enough time line new infrastructure pays for itself with expanded capabilities while minimizing operation costs dependent upon an outside service provider. This was before CACs were in use. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_of_trust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_of_trust
      - blackflame7000 6y ago
        Thanks for the additional info, I didnt know (but probably should have assumed) that finance was the primary motivator. I just had to implement CAC authentication for a webapp and they still use their own CAs for client-side certs aka cac’s so it seems like it was a pretty savy investment at the time that’s not going away anytime soon