4 ms·
We could be faced with a form of Survivorship Bias here[0]. I find that thought rather chilling. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias https://en
by pflenker 3y ago
We could be faced with a form of Survivorship Bias here[0]. I find that thought rather chilling.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias
- gitaarik 3y agoWhich would mean that we have all kinds of active backdoors in our systems without us knowing it. But wouldn't they be detected at some point by someone? Or would they be silently removed again after some time so the attackers are not revealed?
- guenthert 3y agoAttacks on a given system or site can be expected to be removed (or auto-removed) after the operation ended, potentially w/o trace. But for supply-chain attacks there's always a history (if someone bothers to investigate).
- threeseed 3y agoNSO Pegasus has existed for years without all of their exploits being detected. You have to remember there is a lot of code in our systems. And almost every developer is inadequately trained on how to write secure software.
- HarHarVeryFunny 3y agoThere was a recent Dwarkesh Patel interview of Dario Amodei, CEO of Anthropic, who now have ex. national security people on their staff. He said that the assumption is that if a tech company has 10,000 or more employees then not only will you almost certainly have leakers, but there is also a high likelihood there is an actual spy among your staff. This is why they use need-to-know compartmentalism, etc. I wonder what our success rate is in identifying industrial spies? 50%?