3 ms·
Not at all. It's the exact opposite. In that case, they didn't have access to the planes that crashed. In this case, they do.
by breck 5y ago
Not at all. It's the exact opposite. In that case, they didn't have access to the planes that crashed. In this case, they do.
- Normal_gaussian 5y agoDo we? The vast majority of our computing infrastructure is not actively and forensicly monitored; vulns are either actively patched out, accidently patched out, or 'reset' when services/servers are rolled (often due to "misbehaviour", be it a desktop by a user or a server by a tech), leaving no trace that they were exploited. The vast majority of vendors and sysadmins are incentivised not to reveal that they had an exploit, often by reclassification (exploit -> bug), failure to inform, or refusal to detect. I think this is what the parent meant by "I'd assert that a good fraction of exploits are never caught/analyzed.". Afaict as an outsider we account for this with honeypots, which should give us some kind of estimation at least.
- genewitch 5y agoWhat sorts of honeypots are available these days? In 2018 I wandered into honeypots again and windows was the primary host OS for most of them. That's not necessarily and issue, but the rest seemed abandoned or unfinished. On our subnet I was seeing a couple thousand cve exploits a month, and about the same in "unknown probes" that may or may not have been 0-days. I don't have (or want) access to the entire flows through the main gateway, but setting up a few honeypots with public IP is fine by me.