3 ms·

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

by 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.