4 ms·

Ah yes closed source software has such a great track record compared to open source security… lol You are wrong, if you need to hide your code for it to be sec

by khalic 6mo ago

Ah yes closed source software has such a great track record compared to open source security… lol You are wrong, if you need to hide your code for it to be secured, then it was never secure to begin with. But it’s a great way to give a false sense of security through half baked metaphors.

john_strinlai 6mo ago
>Ah yes closed source software has such a great track record compared to open source security… lol what does this have to do with anything i said or the contents of article? >You are wrong, if you need to hide your code for it to be secured, then it was never secure to begin with. did you just ignore the entirety of my last comment? obscurity is a first layer, solely to raise the barrier of entry and slow the game-crackers down. it is not the entire security model. it is effective at what it is designed to do, and it is low effort to implement. >But it’s a great way to give a false sense of security through half baked metaphors. my comments dont have any metaphors. what are you talking about? i think you may be out of your depth here. your entire comment is based on the premise of obscurity being the only security. i can only say the same thing so many times, but here it is one more time: your original comment is only applicable if obscurity is the sole line of defense. it is not the sole line of defense here.
- khalic 6mo ago
  [flagged]
  - john_strinlai 6mo ago
    >Can you be a little bit more obnoxious? If you can’t understand very simple logic like, how open source vs closed source is the perfect example of open vs closed… well source, then guess who is out of his depth here? calling me obnoxious and not responding to literally any point i have made in the entire comment chain is an interesting way to win an argument. good luck.
    - khalic 6mo ago
      Yeah you’re trying to win an argument, I’m trying to find what’s true. I won’t lose time trying to understand what your tech poser logic is trying to piece together. Hiding your source is not how you secure software. It’s how you pretend to be secure for your shareholders. That’s the main reason open source software is more secure than closed source. You don’t need to hide secure code, it actually makes it less secure because less good actors will be able to help you secure it. It won’t change a thing for malicious actors. So again, for people who might read this, he’s very, very wrong.
      - john_strinlai 6mo ago
        >your tech poser logic lol >I’m trying to find what’s true. i am telling you what is true, straight from someone with significant experience in the related fields. >Hiding your source is not how yous secure software. not once have i said that hiding your source = secure software. you are intentionally ignoring and misrepresenting what i have said. i do not understand why. >So again, for people who might read this, he’s very, very wrong. for the context of other readers, i worked in cybersec for over a decade and now teach networking for the cybersec and game design programs at a post-secondary level (also in the pure networking program, but that is less relevant). my opinions in this comment chain are not claims i came up with on a whim. i am happy to discuss them in more detail with anyone who has questions, provided that you will actually read what i have written instead of flailing around.

by khalic 6mo ago

john_strinlai 6mo ago

>Ah yes closed source software has such a great track record compared to open source security… lol what does this have to do with anything i said or the contents of article? >You are wrong, if you need to hide your code for it to be secured, then it was never secure to begin with. did you just ignore the entirety of my last comment? obscurity is a first layer, solely to raise the barrier of entry and slow the game-crackers down. it is not the entire security model. it is effective at what it is designed to do, and it is low effort to implement. >But it’s a great way to give a false sense of security through half baked metaphors. my comments dont have any metaphors. what are you talking about? i think you may be out of your depth here. your entire comment is based on the premise of obscurity being the only security. i can only say the same thing so many times, but here it is one more time: your original comment is only applicable if obscurity is the sole line of defense. it is not the sole line of defense here.

khalic 6mo ago
[flagged]
- john_strinlai 6mo ago
  >Can you be a little bit more obnoxious? If you can’t understand very simple logic like, how open source vs closed source is the perfect example of open vs closed… well source, then guess who is out of his depth here? calling me obnoxious and not responding to literally any point i have made in the entire comment chain is an interesting way to win an argument. good luck.
  - khalic 6mo ago
    Yeah you’re trying to win an argument, I’m trying to find what’s true. I won’t lose time trying to understand what your tech poser logic is trying to piece together. Hiding your source is not how you secure software. It’s how you pretend to be secure for your shareholders. That’s the main reason open source software is more secure than closed source. You don’t need to hide secure code, it actually makes it less secure because less good actors will be able to help you secure it. It won’t change a thing for malicious actors. So again, for people who might read this, he’s very, very wrong.
    - john_strinlai 6mo ago
      >your tech poser logic lol >I’m trying to find what’s true. i am telling you what is true, straight from someone with significant experience in the related fields. >Hiding your source is not how yous secure software. not once have i said that hiding your source = secure software. you are intentionally ignoring and misrepresenting what i have said. i do not understand why. >So again, for people who might read this, he’s very, very wrong. for the context of other readers, i worked in cybersec for over a decade and now teach networking for the cybersec and game design programs at a post-secondary level (also in the pure networking program, but that is less relevant). my opinions in this comment chain are not claims i came up with on a whim. i am happy to discuss them in more detail with anyone who has questions, provided that you will actually read what i have written instead of flailing around.