4 ms·

> 'Security through obscurity'; which isn't very good security. I never understood this. You never have absolute security, that’s why you must apply the Swiss

by sureIy 2y ago

> 'Security through obscurity'; which isn't very good security. I never understood this. You never have absolute security, that’s why you must apply the Swiss cheese model. Obscurity is definitely a worthy slice to have. Few people can attack you if you can only be attacked in person.

Animats 2y ago
The "Swiss cheese model" worked against amateur attackers. It doesn't hold up against well-funded or patient ones who can work through the holes in each layer. The extreme demo of this was Stuxnet.
- Pavilion2095 2y ago
  What is better than the Swiss cheese model or its derivatives? Planes still crash from time to time, but nobody is saying that the model is wrong as the reliability is insane.
- DaSHacka 2y ago
  Hence the purpose behind threat modelling? All security is really just the swiss-cheese model. Some entities just invest in more slices than others to keep more sophisticated/determined attackers out (such as nation states). What other practical model is there for security then defense in depth? "Just make 100% bulletproof computers with no faults?"
  - Animats 2y ago
    Alternative models: - Systems that store the code in read-only memory. Example: slot machines. - Systems with backup systems completely different from the main system, implemented by a different group, and thoroughly tested. Example: Airbus aircraft. - Systems continuously sanity-checked by hard-wired checkers. Example: Traffic lights. - Systems where the important computational functions are totally stateless and hardware reset to a ground state for each transaction. Example: #5 Crossbar.
- wkat4242 2y ago
  No but it makes it a hell of a lot harder for them to do it undetected. There's a reason Stuxnet was an exception. These things are not very common and the only reason we even know about it is because it managed to spread further than its intended target.
- lelanthran 2y ago
  Nothing works against an attack like stuxnet. This doesn't mean that you should do nothing. Obscurity is one layer, and it does protect against drive by attacks. Obscurity as the only layer does not work. Obscurity as an added layer improves security.
- UncleMeat 2y ago
  Systems security is an economics game. It is valuable to be protected against amateur attackers even if the most extreme state actors can still breach you. The criticism of "security through obscurity" is specifically Kerchoff's Principle, which applies to cryptographic systems. It is not an absolute rule outside of that domain.

by sureIy 2y ago

Animats 2y ago

The "Swiss cheese model" worked against amateur attackers. It doesn't hold up against well-funded or patient ones who can work through the holes in each layer. The extreme demo of this was Stuxnet.

Pavilion2095 2y ago
What is better than the Swiss cheese model or its derivatives? Planes still crash from time to time, but nobody is saying that the model is wrong as the reliability is insane.
DaSHacka 2y ago
Hence the purpose behind threat modelling? All security is really just the swiss-cheese model. Some entities just invest in more slices than others to keep more sophisticated/determined attackers out (such as nation states). What other practical model is there for security then defense in depth? "Just make 100% bulletproof computers with no faults?"
- Animats 2y ago
  Alternative models: - Systems that store the code in read-only memory. Example: slot machines. - Systems with backup systems completely different from the main system, implemented by a different group, and thoroughly tested. Example: Airbus aircraft. - Systems continuously sanity-checked by hard-wired checkers. Example: Traffic lights. - Systems where the important computational functions are totally stateless and hardware reset to a ground state for each transaction. Example: #5 Crossbar.
wkat4242 2y ago
No but it makes it a hell of a lot harder for them to do it undetected. There's a reason Stuxnet was an exception. These things are not very common and the only reason we even know about it is because it managed to spread further than its intended target.
lelanthran 2y ago
Nothing works against an attack like stuxnet. This doesn't mean that you should do nothing. Obscurity is one layer, and it does protect against drive by attacks. Obscurity as the only layer does not work. Obscurity as an added layer improves security.
UncleMeat 2y ago
Systems security is an economics game. It is valuable to be protected against amateur attackers even if the most extreme state actors can still breach you. The criticism of "security through obscurity" is specifically Kerchoff's Principle, which applies to cryptographic systems. It is not an absolute rule outside of that domain.