What's your ?

That article was really stupid

You are pretty stupid, fam.

No, it really was. The "hacking is not cool" bit was cringe worthy. The other points are good. Pretty obvious, but good for those that don't know.

I agree. If you don't want someone attempting to hack your software to find bugs, then you are essentially relying on security through obscurity.

holy shit, underrated quote
that entire article has way more common sense than anything I've heard recently. One point he's wrong about though is "knowing not to open certain files", since anything can have an exploit in it. But that can be solved by not having a bunch of broken ass software on your computer.
The entire article is something the Cloudflare circlejerkers need to read. Unfortunately, none of his predictions becamse true 11 years later.

He even fucking contradicts himself by calling the "we're not a target" idea a myth. He's not only a cheeky cunt blogger, but he's got a serious case of cognitive dissonance. If you're going to assume you're a target, you must assume someone finding a vulnerability to be a good thing. No matter how "well engineered" your system is, you're not going to be perfect. It might have less flaws than average, but in complex systems it's going to be pretty difficult for it to not have a single vulnerability.

I don't see how that follows at all.

If you have 1000 vulns in your file browser, it wont help you at all. It's not even necessarily a good thing. For example it might invite a bunch of hackers to pwn your software because they now realize you're a candy ass moron.
myth. Complexity doesn't correlate with number of vulns. I can add 10 million lines of code that are interpreted by my secure 10 LOC interpreter, and it wont raise the number of vulns one bit.

I guess I wasn't clear enough. I meant someone not malicious finding a vulnerability and letting you know about it so you can patch it. Or even someone malicious not exploiting it to its fullest capabilities; it'll save you the possible crisis of someone exploiting it to its fullest.

Don't see how this follows. One less vulnerability means one less attack vector. It's getting exploited in 999 different ways vs getting exploited in 1000 different ways.

I didn't say it correlated. It was an example of something that might make it more likely to have a vulnerability. Either way, it does tend to correlate in most standard systems and is one of the reasons simplicity is an ideal designers tend to follow.

Yes, it's *slightly* better to have 999 vulns than 1000, you are correct.

most systems are dog shit.

my is

RIP in peace, user, RIP in peace