3 ms·
Well, you wouldn't want to weaken your own systems too much. If you know about a vuln, others can know about a vuln, and those others could easily be 'the enem
by kev009 13y ago
Well, you wouldn't want to weaken your own systems too much. If you know about a vuln, others can know about a vuln, and those others could easily be 'the enemy'.
The main credibility I could see in the general claim is encouraging over-complexity and insecure defaults. These can be worked around yourself and lend a high degree of plausible deniability. But even then, your own kind (fellow government departments) are generally all kinds of incompetent and would fall victim to your traps so I just couldn't see how this would not backfire worse than it ever helped. Counter intel folks would be enraged.
- notfoss 13y ago> The main credibility I could see in the general claim is encouraging over-complexity and insecure defaults. This is the thing which concerns me the most. The simplicity is being deprecated in favor of over-engineering. > These can be worked around yourself and lend a high degree of plausible deniability. Exactly. I am still not able to digest that the heartbleed vulnerability was an innocent mistake. > But even then, your own kind (fellow government departments) are generally all kinds of incompetent and would fall victim to your traps so I just couldn't see how this would not backfire worse than it ever helped. Counter intel folks would be enraged. This can be easily bypassed using a hardened version of Linux.