I know most people here hate that, but I think this makes a much stronger case for security by obscurity (not releasing the source code) in these changing times.
Of course security by obscurity by itself is by no mean sufficient.
Of course security by obscurity by itself is by no mean sufficient.
In the 90's most software was closed source but cracks/trainer were always available.
Even for Rayman that had multiple (26?) cd-check during the game.
Security is mainly slowing the attacker because there's a maximum amount of stuff a human can do in 24hours. But now if you can simulate thousands of human attacking a system in different ways, it will crack.
Just like many stores have lock on their doors and, insurance if someone breaks the lock.
I'm guessing data security insurance will become a huge market in the years to come.
- a lot of open source goes closed source to increase security - open source is effectively forced to use LLM to keep up
I am not really arguing against it, because I understand the arguments on both ends and I am not sure what a good solution here is.
Open does not mean vulnerable, open simply means it's a more obvious cat-and-mouse game.