The tank is outfitted with some of the most sophisticated armour ever developed, and has been demonstrated repeatedly to be efficient in actual real-world battle. The idea stems from the notion of cryptography, where it’s sacrilege to base the security of a cryptographic framework on the secrecy of the algorithm.Ī potent instance of where obscurity is leveraged to enhance security positioning is camouflage. There’s security by obscurity: if the secret ever goes out: it’s the end. So if you do not know how to execute that, it’s really secure, but after you know it’s trivial to bypass. The latter is bad.Īn instance of security through obscurity is when somebody has a costly home equipped with a sophisticated lock system, but the way in which you open it is merely by jiggling the handle. The critical determination for if obscurity is good or bad reduces to if it’s being leveraged a layer atop robust security, or as a substitute for it. When integrated to a system that currently has robust controls in place, however, obscurity not just doesn’t hurt you but can be a robust inclusion to a cumulative security positioning. There’s minimal debate with regards to whether security by obscurity is bad per se, this is the case as it implies that the secret being obscured is the key to the entire system’s security. The terminology has negative connotations within the infosec community – typically for the wrong reason. A ton of us are acquainted with a concept referred to as security by obscurity.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |