3 ms·
If there was a legitimate purpose for banning SBCs (there is not), then all computers with wifi would have to be banned. The external fact is that raspis are no
by whatshisface 10mo ago
If there was a legitimate purpose for banning SBCs (there is not), then all computers with wifi would have to be banned. The external fact is that raspis are not a security risk. The internal contradiction is that raspis are computers. It's their whole selling point - they're ordinary PCs.
- kube-system 10mo agoI don't think you understand the threat profile of a large public event. The typical threat to events like this are idiots who mimic crap they see on YouTube. Public safety isn't an exercise in evaluating every theoretical threat, because that list is too long to address with limited resources. It is an exercise in evaluating which threats are most commonly to be exploited, and the easiest to protect against. This is how you most effectively protect an event with limited resources. It is different than the theoretical threat evaluation that someone doing computer science might think about.
- whatshisface 10mo agoRaspberry pis are not a "likely threat," because they are not a threat. It's hard to get away from that fact when evaluating the absurdity of the ban.
- kube-system 10mo agoIdiots running script-kiddy exploits on any device is a threat. The list says "Raspberry Pi" because of the utility in communication to the parties reading the list, not because it is technically accurate. Cops are going to turn you away from this event if you carry in something that looks like circuit boards and wires.
- whatshisface 10mo agoA raspberry pi is a computer. It had HDMI ports on the back. You can put one in a box. Come on, man.
- kube-system 10mo agoAnd? There’s a lot of things that people could theoretically do. The few seconds that someone is going through event security isn’t going to stop a competent attacker, nor is it reasonable to expect them to be able to do that. The point is to stop the most common attackers who are sloppy idiots.
- sadeshmukh 10mo agoNo incompetent person could feasibly use a Raspberry Pi to do any harm, and I invite you to find any examples to the contrary. It is easier to abuse a phone.
- borski 10mo agoThis is the point. It is solving for the wrong problem. An idiot with a Pi or Flipper Zero isn’t the actual threat any more than Star Simpson was. And if you don’t agree the stupidity that Star was put through was absurd, then we simply won’t agree on the matter. There’s a difference between security/intelligence and theater. Too many people mistake the two, because they’ve been trained by folks like the TSA to mistake theater for security/intelligence.
- kube-system 10mo agoYou are all spot on with in terms of a technical information security evaluation here. Unfortunately, the reality is there are not enough information security specialists in the world to hire them as event security for every large public event. And even if there were, the logistics of such an event would not allow for enough time for a proper information security screening. What you're asking for is not theoretically wrong, it's just impossible to implement.
- borski 10mo agoI agree. My argument isn’t that every event can and should build an intelligence apparatus. That would be impossible, though it would actually provide security. I agree. My argument is that banning flipper zeros does not do anything to improve security, even if they wish it did. If they actually cared about security, it would cost them a lot more time and money. Instead, they’ve chosen theater. I don’t even have a problem with this necessarily, if it makes some people feel safer; I have a problem with anyone pretending it is security, and not theater. When someone is given a placebo during a clinical trial, they are informed and unblinded after the trial so that they do not think they were on the actual medication; this is because otherwise, they would draw the wrong conclusion from the trial for themselves. This is theater; that’s okay, maybe, but let’s not pretend it’s something it isn’t. Anyway, I think we’re repeating ourselves, and I’m happy to agree to disagree.
- borski 10mo agoIdiots runnings script kiddie exploits on their Android phone is also a threat. And?
- kube-system 10mo agoAbsolutely. The difference is that phones are in everyone's pocket. Again, public safety has nothing to do with the elimination of risk. It is a practical exercise in the mitigation of risk.
- borski 10mo ago> Again, public safety has nothing to do with the elimination of risk. It is a practical exercise in the mitigation of risk. Sometimes. Sometimes, it is theatre.
- robocat 10mo agoAlso need to ban any Android phone models which can unlock the bootloader.