It really is only in the world of IT security is this attitude so pervasive, where you constantly blame victims. While defense is a great offense it can't hurt to be an annoyance to bad actors.
that's so absolutely ridiculous.
"Hey bud, you're wearing your helmet backwards." "Oh, so it's MY fault when I run into something on my motorcycle, HUH?!"
"Oh ok, well, have fun. I'll be safely over here. "
a zip bomb will only serve to hinder teenage/kid 'hackers' -- next you're going to tell me if I don't implement a zip bomb somewhere that it'll deprive the next generation of hackers of a valuable life lesson -- please.
At what point can we point out a flawed methodology without being accused of being 'the bad guys' ourselves? It gets to be that when you see someone making a mistake you feel like just letting them dive in and do it ; otherwise you'll be labeled the worlds' worst victim-blaming monster -- eh, easier to keep your mouth shut at some point .. that's a dangerous condition.
Perhaps consider reading the article thoroughly before you start claiming it to be more than what it is.
And that is literally what the blog post says - it will mess with script kiddies who don't change their user agent. Author acknowledges that it is not an actual methodology to protect their server, so pointing out that it's a flawed methodology is a weird flex. I have not seen anyone suggest using zip bombs instead of hardening the server.
I definitely blame the "oh we should do nothing" approach to the current security situation
Yes, if you want to be the lame duck and get scanned leisurely by the bad actors and diligently serving 404s etc be my guest.
Then we wonder why email became useless outside of the big providers, and every site needs to behind a CDN, etc