The market is literally saying they are undervalued.
The flogging will continue until bug bounties improve.
It's eerily similar to "burn it all down" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerationism, which, itself is on the rise and burning from both ends.
I infer your point to be that more attacks might cause the victims to step up their defenses. It's a cat and mouse game. Always has been in all realms.
"It'll get worse before it gets better." I've been hearing that for decades. I'm starting to wonder, due to what appears to be a decline in civility. Following the rules only works if we all do. Those who eschew the rules have an obvious advantage.
Where has integrity gone? We are tearing ourselves apart and justifying it ... or coming to terms with it I suppose, by saying it'll be better some day.
Well... when... exactly? By what measure will we know?
I know Stephen Pinker, Hans Rosling, and various folks say it's the best time to be a human. Okay. Sure. I see the math. I'd like to see them update their charts for data out over the past year.
But ... anecdotally, none of that math seems to percolate down to my community. The people around me are in constant fear. I just saw a woman walking down the road, all by herself, I had clear vision for a mile and so no one else but her... and she was wearing a mask.
She was afraid. She was anxious. Regardless of the relative safety that exists today, or the belief that it'll be safer tomorrow because of the lack of said safety, the people around me aren't feeling it.
They're buying guns because red people are coming for them... or the blue people already are. Or the government will. There is literally no milk at the store because of an HDPE shortage prompting the grocer to put a Force Majeur notice on the dairy fridge door.
Trust has broken down. Fear of our own neighbors is up. Crime is up. Poverty is up. Suicide is up. Cyber crime is up. Inflation is up. The Gini coefficient is up.
I really have trouble believing that making it worse real fast, or even reporting more of it, is going to make it better.
I don't see it.
I prefer a society where passengers are free to chit chat with the pilots when they aren't busy. Where children who might be interested in being a pilot can see a cockpit in the air and how it's done.
I remember reading about the history of security in ancient Rome. The lengths to which normal citizens had to go to to protect their homes. I don't want that. No one wants that. No one wanted that then either.
It's a distraction from productivity. It's a constant worry factor that consumes brain waves that could be spent making all our lives better.
Instead, we have to divert our attention to those who want to make it worse.
There are many differences. I already mentioned locality and scale. Another is that it's possible to make secure software (aka math) that precludes undesirable behavior a priori, whereas such thing is impossible in the real world.
> Digital borders exist all over the net. We use them every day to secure all sorts of things
Erm, how do you square these two sentences?
I took your first comment to be arguing against software security in general, presumably in favor of more post-facto enforcement when people violated authorization boundaries.
Your response then seemed to focus on mitigating the cross-jurisdictional issues that make post-facto enforcement hard, by having some sort of software-based security enforcement at a "border", and then relying on post-facto enforcement inside of that.
Now you seem to be supporting software-based security in the form of firewalls everywhere?
If we continue along this trend to even more local, we'll get to fewer firewalls (because they aren't that good of a technology), with security pushed out to the edges. Which is where best practices seem to be headed (BeyondCorp, etc), but is directly antithetical to your initial comment.
Not interested.
You've got a good point about general fear and trust breakdown with your top level comment (although not your inference from someone wearing a mask alone outside, there are many good reasons for that such as the possibility of coming up on someone, not wanting to fiddle with it while going between places you need it, etc.)
It's not my job to protect my house from a foreign military that might want to come into it and steal things from me.
Nor should I install radar systems to alert me to enemy aircraft. That's why the USA spends the better part of a trillion dollars on the military.
That's my government's job and they should do that job. That's what I'm saying.
If a foreign government sent boats full of marauders to our shores to steal from people's homes and stores, you think the government would look the other way?
I don't. I think they'd blow the boats up and kill the marauders.
One can't just tell russians/chinese/iranians "we have open and free society do please don't hack into our electric grid" and expect it to work.
And yeah... we exactly can say that. We do it all the time. We almost blew up the world because Russia sent some missiles to Cuba.
There's no reason the digital war can't have physical repercussions. If a foreign nation invades our digital properties, we drop a bomb on their electric plant.
Simple as that.
> Simple as that.
Do you think people would support a nuclear war ( because if the US bombs Russia or China, the response could very well be nuclear) as a response to hacking? And are you aware that the US is one of the most active countries on the cyber warfare front? ( Snowden, the various NSA toolkit leaks, etc.) Should Iran respond with bombs when Israel and maybe the US sabotage it's nuclear industry? Should Russia respond with nukes when the US disrupts GRU operations?
Not gonna happen. Because: a) that would almost surely mean all-out war (in case of Russia/China - with country that has nukes), started by US b) dropping a bomb on electric plant of country that has at least some air defense (and I think it's safe to assume Russia/China/Iran have plenty of that) is not simple
I expect after a few major crises involving mass casualties or major economic losses the federal government will mandate that private industry completely disconnect certain critical infrastructure control systems from the public Internet. Basically the same approach used by SIPRNet.
letters of marque for the nation-state actors. bounty hunters for the criminals. There's a lot of options, I suspect using the financial systems to stop bad guys is probably going to miss the mark and produce emergent unintended consequences.
I.E. it's going to get bloody.