3 ms·

I'm really curious how much of a joke that was and wasn't

troyvit 4y ago
Yeah! First I read the HN comments and saw how pissed many people were. That helped set the tune for the article (read: it helped me handle my own triggers) and it was a lot more fun that way.
xena 4y ago
The best part is that it's a joke that has enough merit to it that it's worth being taken seriously. That makes for good satire. I love writing surrealism, it's a very hard balance to meet.
- lelanthran 4y ago
  > The best part is that it's a joke that has enough merit to it that it's worth being taken seriously. That makes for good satire. I love writing surrealism, it's a very hard balance to meet. What makes you think you met it?
  - xena 4y ago
    This comment section not understanding where I was being satirical.
    - lelanthran 4y ago
      > This comment section not understanding where I was being satirical. That means you didn't meet it[1]. [1]That balance you were talking about. You missed it. If too few people understand your content, it's not the people that's the problem. As someone attempting to present an argument, the onus is on the presenter to make the argument readable, not on the reader to squint until it gets readable. IOW, if you can't be bothered to write your message well, why did you expect other people to be bothered to read it at all?
      - Dylan16807 4y ago
        What makes you say "too few" understood? It's a balance, right? So if plenty of people understand, and the right people didn't understand, then it's right on target. And it looks to me like lots of people understood.
SLWW 4y ago
I think the author intended it as a valid criticism, though it's hard to tell given the passé stylistic choice that calls back to early internet (I am nostalgic for those days sometimes). However I disagree with that as it's just one more, fairly silly, obstacle to overcome. If this "replacement" ever did, theoretically, been seen as suitable, all that would happen would be that attack code would suddenly see an increase in quality. If you've done any research into quality malware, exploits and the like (both domestic and foreign), the quality and often elegant solutions they come up with will not be somehow kneecapped by an emoji. It also only needs to support inputting one emoji in the event that someone uses this out in the field; not hard to do in shellcode.
- Wowfunhappy 4y ago
  > If this "replacement" ever did, theoretically, been seen as suitable, all that would happen would be that attack code would suddenly see an increase in quality. This is where I believe security-through-obscurity is underrated. As long as you're small enough that targeted attacks aren't part of your threat model, merely being unique affords a great deal of safety. Your wierdo jerry-rigged authentication system may not be particularly robust, but it's more likely than any mainstream product to repel an automated attack.
  - SLWW 4y ago
    In the event that something is seen as suitable; i'm assuming it would see some adoption (that's the assumption I wrote the comment under). However I do agree, at least against automated attacks; there will be a bit more security. Though if you are doing anything serious that draws attention, at that point obscurity is all but putting off the enevitable failure if you are ever targetted.

Yeah! First I read the HN comments and saw how pissed many people were. That helped set the tune for the article (read: it helped me handle my own triggers) and it was a lot more fun that way.

xena 4y ago

The best part is that it's a joke that has enough merit to it that it's worth being taken seriously. That makes for good satire. I love writing surrealism, it's a very hard balance to meet.

lelanthran 4y ago
> The best part is that it's a joke that has enough merit to it that it's worth being taken seriously. That makes for good satire. I love writing surrealism, it's a very hard balance to meet. What makes you think you met it?
- xena 4y ago
  This comment section not understanding where I was being satirical.
  - lelanthran 4y ago
    > This comment section not understanding where I was being satirical. That means you didn't meet it[1]. [1]That balance you were talking about. You missed it. If too few people understand your content, it's not the people that's the problem. As someone attempting to present an argument, the onus is on the presenter to make the argument readable, not on the reader to squint until it gets readable. IOW, if you can't be bothered to write your message well, why did you expect other people to be bothered to read it at all?
    - Dylan16807 4y ago
      What makes you say "too few" understood? It's a balance, right? So if plenty of people understand, and the right people didn't understand, then it's right on target. And it looks to me like lots of people understood.

SLWW 4y ago

I think the author intended it as a valid criticism, though it's hard to tell given the passé stylistic choice that calls back to early internet (I am nostalgic for those days sometimes). However I disagree with that as it's just one more, fairly silly, obstacle to overcome. If this "replacement" ever did, theoretically, been seen as suitable, all that would happen would be that attack code would suddenly see an increase in quality. If you've done any research into quality malware, exploits and the like (both domestic and foreign), the quality and often elegant solutions they come up with will not be somehow kneecapped by an emoji. It also only needs to support inputting one emoji in the event that someone uses this out in the field; not hard to do in shellcode.

Wowfunhappy 4y ago
> If this "replacement" ever did, theoretically, been seen as suitable, all that would happen would be that attack code would suddenly see an increase in quality. This is where I believe security-through-obscurity is underrated. As long as you're small enough that targeted attacks aren't part of your threat model, merely being unique affords a great deal of safety. Your wierdo jerry-rigged authentication system may not be particularly robust, but it's more likely than any mainstream product to repel an automated attack.
- SLWW 4y ago
  In the event that something is seen as suitable; i'm assuming it would see some adoption (that's the assumption I wrote the comment under). However I do agree, at least against automated attacks; there will be a bit more security. Though if you are doing anything serious that draws attention, at that point obscurity is all but putting off the enevitable failure if you are ever targetted.