Better analogy would blaming a supermarket that hosts an outdoor farmers market because you contracted food poisoning from a stand owned by someone else - NOT for buying food from within the supermarket itself.
Meanwhile one of the other customers has norovirus and is deliberately touching everything so others contract it.
Agreed with your sentiment, and that was a great example.
Just like any security control, if it's your only means of security, it will not offer much risk reduction. Just like all security controls, the if you want risk reduction use more security controls together. Like all security controls, there is no way to eliminate risk, just reduce it as much as possible while still being able to effectively achieve your mission.
Because of this I believe security through obscurity to be important component in a healthy and mature risk posture.
It irks me when it's dismissed because obscurity is not security. No single security control is security on its own.
Think about leaving your bike unlocked in times square, vs. the top of a 7 000 meter mountain in the himalayas.
Which unlocked (unsecure) bike is more likely to be stolen, and ergo has a lower risk attached?
----
Obscurity does not help you when the thief has already found your bike, nor is obscurity very helpful for keeping your bike safe if you happen to live in times square.
But if you live at the top of a himalayan peak, you can be fairly certain you're not going to have your bike stolen.
the security controls for a bike on a high mountain are not obscurity, they're the lack of oxygen (that kills), the cold (that kills), the height (that kills), and the literal sheer difficulty of getting there.
you could put the bike right on the side of the mountain without any obfuscation and it won't get got because ain't no one gonna die for a bike.
its like how we know where dead people are on Everest but we can't get them down; they serve as landmarks.
Not taking sides here. This communication could have been, far, far better handled had a crisis-PR person, or frankly any decent PR person, been involved.
I expected years ago that the government, at some point, would realize if they are interested in the data that they could purchase, other nation states would be as well and could use it against us. Therefore the logical conclusion would be to declare collection and sale of such data to be a matter of national security and strongly restrict it as such.
The detail I failed to understand at the time was just how much money there is in data collection and brokerage.
It's obviously not new. ±400VDC architecture was presented at Open Compute last year, which is a fair indicator that the presenter had put it into practice at least 5 years prior to disclosing it. 48VDC distribution within a rack, and 48-to-1V direct regulators for CPUs, were both contributed to OCP 7 years ago, at which point they were both old hat. And 48VDC telco junk is, of course, totally ancient.
One of the worst volume controls I have run across is when the UI tries to simulate a physical knob. More often than not I see this on VST Plugins and I have yet to find one that I actually like - they are all equally terrible.
They appear to fall into 3 buckets:
1) Worst: Direction of the cursor has move in a circular pattern as if dragging a physical knob with a cursor.
2) Annoying, but least common: You have to move the cursor horizontally to move the knob
3) Most common, but still annoying: You have to move the cursor vertically to move the knob.
Common in desktop software for controlling measurement gear like oscilloscopes. Those have actual knobs on the equipment, so the software does the same thing and it's the worst thing ever.
Yeah, your 1 option is actually worse than some of parody submissions. What makes it truly horrific is that it works just enough to get you to put your thumb into muscle spasms trying to do it.
Meanwhile one of the other customers has norovirus and is deliberately touching everything so others contract it.
reply