4 ms·

It's sad that Mutually Assured Destruction is the first place they go. They could get a better understanding of security and enforce, research, and advise stan

by Zikes 12y ago

It's sad that Mutually Assured Destruction is the first place they go. They could get a better understanding of security and enforce, research, and advise standards of protection on consumer data, making everyone in the country better off, or they can "hack back". I don't really see how knowing what the average Joe in North Korea is Googling is supposed to help when my data is leaking like a sieve, but whatever.

Kalium 12y ago
They could, and then they'd be fighting an endless losing war over security. They'd rather like to have their own information attack capabilities.
- Zikes 12y ago
  Security will always be cat and mouse, but in the case of information security a good offense does not at all make for a good defense. Those holes in our information security system will still be there, to be exploited by whomever finds them. The only reasonable course of action is to devote resources to penetration testing ourselves and implementing strong security standards, along with developing good disaster recovery and damage minimizing plans.
  - Kalium 12y ago
    Whether or not offense makes for defense depends somewhat on the actor. For some, deterrence does work. For the rest, we have the basic problem that defense is much harder than offense. Also, the US seems to be far more vulnerable than most. Those aside, offensive capabilities are needed. It's just a question of balancing them against defensive capabilities. I know firsthand that significant effort is going into defense, it just doesn't get the press that offensive capabilities do.
    - Zikes 12y ago
      Their desire for a government accessible backdoor in everything consumers own says something different.
      - Kalium 12y ago
        Yes, some of the top-level political efforts are pretty damn ugly... and likely to backfire. Those shouldn't be mistaken for the whole of ongoing defensive efforts, though. Many of the others are much more practical.

by Zikes 12y ago

Kalium 12y ago

They could, and then they'd be fighting an endless losing war over security. They'd rather like to have their own information attack capabilities.

Zikes 12y ago
Security will always be cat and mouse, but in the case of information security a good offense does not at all make for a good defense. Those holes in our information security system will still be there, to be exploited by whomever finds them. The only reasonable course of action is to devote resources to penetration testing ourselves and implementing strong security standards, along with developing good disaster recovery and damage minimizing plans.
- Kalium 12y ago
  Whether or not offense makes for defense depends somewhat on the actor. For some, deterrence does work. For the rest, we have the basic problem that defense is much harder than offense. Also, the US seems to be far more vulnerable than most. Those aside, offensive capabilities are needed. It's just a question of balancing them against defensive capabilities. I know firsthand that significant effort is going into defense, it just doesn't get the press that offensive capabilities do.
  - Zikes 12y ago
    Their desire for a government accessible backdoor in everything consumers own says something different.
    - Kalium 12y ago
      Yes, some of the top-level political efforts are pretty damn ugly... and likely to backfire. Those shouldn't be mistaken for the whole of ongoing defensive efforts, though. Many of the others are much more practical.