4 ms·
It’s not immediately obvious to me that diversity is better. A chain is only as strong as it’s weakest link. If a foreign state has access to two phones with a
by simonh 5y ago
It’s not immediately obvious to me that diversity is better. A chain is only as strong as it’s weakest link. If a foreign state has access to two phones with a secret on it and each has a different OS with different vulnerabilities, that just gives them a bigger attack surface.
Similarly if there are 5 sophisticated attackers after your secrets, some may have cracked your phone security, but not others. If you use more different phone OSes you increase the chance that more attackers have exploits for at least some of your phones.
Also using more phone types complicates training, increases the work you must do checking for vulnerabilities, diluting your efforts.
- trembonator 5y ago
- est31 5y agoIt gets different when you are talking about denial of service attacks. Imagine everyone drove cars from the same brand, and one day a hacker discovers a way to make them all stop. Then society is shut down. If 20% of cars stopped working, it's still a major catastrophy but you can work around it somehow. If you have robot armies or something it gets even more dangerous to put all your eggs into one vendor basket.
- hamilyon2 5y agoYou are implying that phone models for top officials are chosen at random. Better diversity would also mean more choices, which mean some devices are more tailored to needs of a certain type of consumers, like business and government ones. They get less gifs to send, but have their software developed by paranoid people and "do not leak any secrets ever", and "no rce" are their first and only sprint goals. So basically, now choice is between bad alternative and the even worse one. Asking for more choices is an important proposition, I'd say