3 ms·

Not helpful. But that's okay, I'm going to hold your hand for a bit. Pretend the article said "three hidden microphones were found to be added to this board."

Not helpful. But that's okay, I'm going to hold your hand for a bit. Pretend the article said "three hidden microphones were found to be added to this board." That tells the attacker which board is being tested, that they are testing for microphones, and how many of their microphones have been found. If your job is to hide microphones every day, do you see how this information could help you moving forward? Do you see why this is more than a binary caught/not caught?

zepto 6y ago
There was no reason not to answer straightforwardly at the beginning. Weird that you didn’t. Yes, it’s possible there is more than one attack and they want to avoid revealing which ones have been detected. This may be the class of information they are protecting. If so, the journalism leaves us in the same position as the attackers - the number of attacks we know have been detected is in the range 0 - n. I.e. it’s possible the article is complete bullshit. Another possibility is that the article is itself disinformation. If attackers can’t tell then neither can we. What it is not, is a news story we can trust.
- swirepe 6y ago
  >it’s possible the article is complete bullshit. Another possibility is that the article is itself disinformation. Okay, that's fair. Your question was about what kinds of information an attacker can use. I didn't think of your question in the context of the entire article being disinformation. I need to think more about that. >Yes, it’s possible there is more than one attack and they want to avoid revealing which ones have been detected. >This may be the class of information they are protecting. >There was no reason not to answer straightforwardly at the beginning. Weird that you didn’t. I'm glad I didn't, and I'm glad you took the time to puzzle that through. >Nice try You want to give your attacker as little information as possible. Even information about the kinds of information you're restricting can be used against you.
  - zepto 6y ago
    > I'm glad you took the time to puzzle that through. I didn’t puzzle anything through. I just kept asking until you responded straightforwardly. I just wanted to know what classes of information people thought the journalists might be protecting. >Nice try > You want to give your attacker as little information as possible. Even information about the kinds of information you're restricting can be used against you. At some level yes, but not at the level of this discussion. The ideas we’re talking about here are widely present even in pop-culture.
    - swirepe 6y ago
      > I just wanted to know what classes of information people thought the journalists might be protecting. I just made a joke. You didn't get it (?), so I encouraged you to think through some possible answers to your own question. If you can think of more than one class of information that you wouldn't want your attacker to know you have, then you can arrive at the punchline yourself. It's not too late to try it, by the way. Thinking like the attacker is a good exercise. The attacker doesn't even have to be real. >At some level yes, but not at the level of this discussion. The ideas we’re talking about here are widely present even in pop-culture. I'm not sure what you mean by this, but operational security would still apply even when you have to make press releases. Companies juggle this all the time, e.g. sharing just enough about their proprietary technology to attract new employees/customers without giving everything away.
      - zepto 6y ago
        > I just made a joke. You didn't get it (?), so I encouraged you to think through some possible answers to your own question. If you really were making a joke, you could have just said so when I ‘didn’t get it’. I’d probably have said something like ‘fair play’, or ‘nice’. Because you didn’t we are left with other possibilities to consider: 1. You were just being condescending from the beginning, and are now trying to claim it was a joke to save face. 2. It was a bad joke, and you doubled down on condescension to save face. The evidence supports either of these because ‘encouraging someone to think something through’ when you haven’t engaged in good faith conversation is an ignorant and condescending move. Have you considered the possibility that I am asking what other people think because I want to know what other people think, and that ‘being encouraged to think it through’ will simply not answer that question? There is nothing to suggest that you are an expert on this topic. Your own knowledge of it is limited despite having ‘thought it through’, proven by the fact that my response to your first real answer immediately showed you had missed something. There is nothing wrong with making jokes, even bad ones, but following up with condescension makes it look like you weren’t actually joking. We’ll never know now. > I'm not sure what you mean by this, but operational security would still apply even when you have to make press releases. Are you trying to create the impression that you are in personal possession of secrets about this attack?

zepto 6y ago

There was no reason not to answer straightforwardly at the beginning. Weird that you didn’t. Yes, it’s possible there is more than one attack and they want to avoid revealing which ones have been detected. This may be the class of information they are protecting. If so, the journalism leaves us in the same position as the attackers - the number of attacks we know have been detected is in the range 0 - n. I.e. it’s possible the article is complete bullshit. Another possibility is that the article is itself disinformation. If attackers can’t tell then neither can we. What it is not, is a news story we can trust.

swirepe 6y ago
>it’s possible the article is complete bullshit. Another possibility is that the article is itself disinformation. Okay, that's fair. Your question was about what kinds of information an attacker can use. I didn't think of your question in the context of the entire article being disinformation. I need to think more about that. >Yes, it’s possible there is more than one attack and they want to avoid revealing which ones have been detected. >This may be the class of information they are protecting. >There was no reason not to answer straightforwardly at the beginning. Weird that you didn’t. I'm glad I didn't, and I'm glad you took the time to puzzle that through. >Nice try You want to give your attacker as little information as possible. Even information about the kinds of information you're restricting can be used against you.
- zepto 6y ago
  > I'm glad you took the time to puzzle that through. I didn’t puzzle anything through. I just kept asking until you responded straightforwardly. I just wanted to know what classes of information people thought the journalists might be protecting. >Nice try > You want to give your attacker as little information as possible. Even information about the kinds of information you're restricting can be used against you. At some level yes, but not at the level of this discussion. The ideas we’re talking about here are widely present even in pop-culture.
  - swirepe 6y ago
    > I just wanted to know what classes of information people thought the journalists might be protecting. I just made a joke. You didn't get it (?), so I encouraged you to think through some possible answers to your own question. If you can think of more than one class of information that you wouldn't want your attacker to know you have, then you can arrive at the punchline yourself. It's not too late to try it, by the way. Thinking like the attacker is a good exercise. The attacker doesn't even have to be real. >At some level yes, but not at the level of this discussion. The ideas we’re talking about here are widely present even in pop-culture. I'm not sure what you mean by this, but operational security would still apply even when you have to make press releases. Companies juggle this all the time, e.g. sharing just enough about their proprietary technology to attract new employees/customers without giving everything away.
    - zepto 6y ago
      > I just made a joke. You didn't get it (?), so I encouraged you to think through some possible answers to your own question. If you really were making a joke, you could have just said so when I ‘didn’t get it’. I’d probably have said something like ‘fair play’, or ‘nice’. Because you didn’t we are left with other possibilities to consider: 1. You were just being condescending from the beginning, and are now trying to claim it was a joke to save face. 2. It was a bad joke, and you doubled down on condescension to save face. The evidence supports either of these because ‘encouraging someone to think something through’ when you haven’t engaged in good faith conversation is an ignorant and condescending move. Have you considered the possibility that I am asking what other people think because I want to know what other people think, and that ‘being encouraged to think it through’ will simply not answer that question? There is nothing to suggest that you are an expert on this topic. Your own knowledge of it is limited despite having ‘thought it through’, proven by the fact that my response to your first real answer immediately showed you had missed something. There is nothing wrong with making jokes, even bad ones, but following up with condescension makes it look like you weren’t actually joking. We’ll never know now. > I'm not sure what you mean by this, but operational security would still apply even when you have to make press releases. Are you trying to create the impression that you are in personal possession of secrets about this attack?