4 ms·
I find it easiest to think in terms of "What cost would it take to defeat security here, and who does this price out of the market?" Defenses raise the cost of
by patio11 12y ago
I find it easiest to think in terms of "What cost would it take to defeat security here, and who does this price out of the market?" Defenses raise the cost of attacking, they don't defeat all attacks forevermore.
Thinking things through this way will quickly clue one into the notion that it is much more important to pick a good adversary than to pick good defenses. I strongly recommend not picking the USFG, or any other nation, as an adversary. You will not win. The price of your identity is not measured in aircraft carriers. Their budget is.
- MichaelGG 12y agoYeah, but where is the fun in that? If you remove state level actors, you get to do all sorts of weak stuff like "yeah I checked my email from a cyber cafe without Tor once". I do concur though. Basically my analysis came to that any customers that really wanted or needed the level of service I was considering would probably not be around long, even if I stayed hidden (purely to avoid getting subpoenas to expose them - my plans were totally legal). And if they didn't really need that level of safety, then they would not use my product, because the limitations and costs would not be worth it. On the flip side, look how long SR operated, and how " easy " a job LE had. If Ross would have been content to have a dozen million dollars and move on early, he probably could have gotten away with it.