4 ms·
BTW, "at least they weren't supposed to" is not a good enough argument in security :) You have to think about people who are not following the rules or your sec
by lsh123 13y ago
BTW, "at least they weren't supposed to" is not a good enough argument in security :) You have to think about people who are not following the rules or your security is only protecting from a well-behaving 1st grade student.
- kllrnohj 13y agoThere is no such thing as perfect security, only good enough security. At some point you have to accept risks, and the risk of physical network attacks is incredibly small compared to all the other attack vectors. Nobody was well prepared for the NSA's physical network attacks.
- Daniel_Newby 13y agoEverybody who cared knew that the world's governments tap every fiber they can lay their hands on. It has been discussed on HN with great regularity for years before these NSA non-revelations. Physical attacks were and are a certainty. Anybody who ignores this fact has only themselves to blame. A good argument can even be made that they deserved to be pwned as punishment for their utter fecklessness.
- kllrnohj 13y agoNo, what was discussed was the NSA tapping in at ISP points, not digging up cables to splice them. And "discussed" is not accurate. It was proposed by a few but rejected by most as paranoid.
- chris_mahan 13y agoWait a minute... "It was proposed by a few but rejected by most as paranoid." and yet is most likely what happened? so the most in "rejected by most" were wrong. Wrong! So when someone says: "You're just being paranoid", my reply will be: "Better paranoid than wrong."
- kllrnohj 13y agoEven a broken clock is right twice a day.
- chris_mahan 13y agoA broken clock is always unreliable.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]