3 ms·
I've heard a better analogy - security by obscurity is like camouflage on a tank. A tank has massive armor and a terrifying gun to defend itself with. But even
by b0rsuk 6y ago
I've heard a better analogy - security by obscurity is like camouflage on a tank. A tank has massive armor and a terrifying gun to defend itself with. But even a half-assed camouflage can delay enemy reaction by a few seconds. Sometimes it's all it takes, because it lets you shoot first. In addition, the cost of camouflage paint or a net is laughably low and can be replaced in the field. It's simply an extra layer of protection and a very inexpensive one.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- est 6y agohttps://www.reddit.com/r/netsec/comments/ioxux2/security_by_obscurity_is_underrated/ https://www.reddit.com/r/netsec/comments/ioxux2/security_by_... (security by obscurity ) is camouflage, not armor.
- smaudet 6y agoIts also a terrible thing to say to your pointy haired boss, which is in part where I think the heresy of talking about it comes from. If you say "security" that's the last thing your boss heard you say "oh yeah obscurity, great, that's cheap!" and you end up in camouflage in the field, with no tank. I don't like the article the more I think about it, it speaks of inexperience and perhaps not understanding the concept well, and that it is important to accurately articulate and distinguish concepts. No one is going to argue that camo isn't an advantage to a soldier, but it is not security in any meaningful sense, no more than camouflage is a bunker, or a trench, or a tank. And Camo comes with a real downside too, just like in the field, if you're camo'ed too well, you're apt to take friendly fire or be missed by artillery lobbing a shell.