2 ms·
Wasn’t that supposed to be the default assumption? The bad guys start just after your network interface. This was the argument against WiFi encryption in the o
by bee_rider 1y ago
Wasn’t that supposed to be the default assumption? The bad guys start just after your network interface.
This was the argument against WiFi encryption in the old days (who cares about WiFi encryption, the network is assumed evil, so your messages should be encrypted rendering WiFi security moot). Which actually seemed pretty compelling to me. Nowadays, of course, someone will hop on your WiFi and download a bunch of movies without authorization, giving you copyright headaches. But that’s authentication…
- mlyle 1y agoSure— but now everything has so many dependencies; dependencies are recursive, and the scope exceeds any reasonable audit. And at least getting lucky enough to spot malfeasance is getting less and less likely as performance and noise grows.
- alexchantavy 1y agoYeah that's what's called an assume breach/zero trust mindset. In a modern environment you can't rely on the network perimeter being a security boundary, so you need to minimize permissions (so that if an identity is hacked then the blast radius is reduced) and invest in detections and remediation plans.
- vasco 1y ago> will hop on your WiFi and download a bunch of movies without authorization, giving you copyright headaches It's funny how the copyright lobby as brainwashed us so much that the worse you can think of someone in your wifi can do is download movies. What about, you know, actual crime? Wire fraud, planning terrorist attacks etc from your network? But we think of downloading movies.
- mlyle 1y agoI think this is the most likely one. If you're going to do serious terrorism, A) you probably don't need tons of bits, B) you probably take opsec seriously and want a better cut-out than using a neighbor's wifi. But if you want to download movies, an open nearby wifi sounds close and convenient.