3 ms·

Interesting—I haven't seen that term used that way before. If I encrpyt my customers' private data using a well-publicized encryption method, is it still securi

by joliv 12y ago

Interesting—I haven't seen that term used that way before. If I encrpyt my customers' private data using a well-publicized encryption method, is it still security through obscurity, simply because they are secrets?

woodman 12y ago
No. That would be like saying a locked door is security through obscurity, because the cuts of the key unlock the door - not the physical key. The concept requires a great deal of torturing to get there :) Anyway, the whole idea that the state needs to operate in secret to perform its duties is ridiculous and only serves bad actors. Who would seriously wish for a secret police force anyway? Maybe we should be focusing on preventing and deescalating, through systemic and scalable solutions, instead of masked weekend warriors kicking down doors and shooting people. Also, if you want a laugh - here is a funny story about what happens when you allow the DEA to operate in secret: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/540/a-front http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/540/a...
- derefr 12y ago
  > a locked door is security through obscurity, because the cuts of the key unlock the door - not the physical key. I don't know, that's not such a bad analogy. To put it another way, a key is just a really funny way to write down a bunch of numbers, and a key-lock is just a really esoteric number-pad. People have actually broken into houses by cutting working keys from pictures they took of victims unlocking their doors—so it's not even obscurity aiding the security per se (or rather, it used to be, but then we greatly standardized the way key-locks work.) Instead, it's just concealment, like the concealed face of a credit card in your wallet.
derefr 12y ago
If you keep the key on the same machine as the data, it might be the specific kind of "security through obscurity" that is more commonly referred to as "DRM."

by joliv 12y ago

woodman 12y ago

No. That would be like saying a locked door is security through obscurity, because the cuts of the key unlock the door - not the physical key. The concept requires a great deal of torturing to get there :) Anyway, the whole idea that the state needs to operate in secret to perform its duties is ridiculous and only serves bad actors. Who would seriously wish for a secret police force anyway? Maybe we should be focusing on preventing and deescalating, through systemic and scalable solutions, instead of masked weekend warriors kicking down doors and shooting people. Also, if you want a laugh - here is a funny story about what happens when you allow the DEA to operate in secret: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/540/a-front http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/540/a...

derefr 12y ago
> a locked door is security through obscurity, because the cuts of the key unlock the door - not the physical key. I don't know, that's not such a bad analogy. To put it another way, a key is just a really funny way to write down a bunch of numbers, and a key-lock is just a really esoteric number-pad. People have actually broken into houses by cutting working keys from pictures they took of victims unlocking their doors—so it's not even obscurity aiding the security per se (or rather, it used to be, but then we greatly standardized the way key-locks work.) Instead, it's just concealment, like the concealed face of a credit card in your wallet.

derefr 12y ago

If you keep the key on the same machine as the data, it might be the specific kind of "security through obscurity" that is more commonly referred to as "DRM."