Difference between revisions of "Talk:Cyberattack"
(question @all) |
m (Jun moved page Talk:Cyber attack to Talk:Cyberattack: Spell) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
From the current lede of the article: | From the current lede of the article: | ||
"Cyber attacks are a new form of large scale security holes, which suspiciously emerge simultaneously in software used by i.e government agencies, banks and microsoft." | "Cyber attacks are a new form of large scale security holes, which suspiciously emerge simultaneously in software used by i.e government agencies, banks and microsoft." | ||
| − | I think the idea is right, but the wording is off. Security holes in software are always there. In the software/OS development world as it is, you practically can not defend against NSA/five eyes capabilities. Adding to that, was much discussed wit the 'Internet of things' devices, companies will look for 'features' that can be marketed, but will invest next to nothing for security, since that will not make any money (ie people are not willing to pay more [in general] for a device that is more secure [cheaper is better most of the times]). MAC-OS, IOS, Microsoft are indeed trying to improve security, but for many applications the sentence before applies. So cyber-warfare and cyber-attacks will exploit what they can, and there is so much in terms of security flaws in software in general, that you can not realistically make out what hack worked through '[[backdoor|a planned feature]]' and what is just a flaw in the software - if that is what the sentence wants to relate. I would try to rephrase that a bit. | + | I think the idea is right, but the wording is off. Security holes in software are always there. In the software/OS development world as it is, you practically can not defend against NSA/five eyes capabilities. Adding to that, was much discussed wit the 'Internet of things' devices, companies will look for 'features' that can be marketed, but will invest next to nothing for security, since that will not make any money (ie people are not willing to pay more [in general] for a device that is more secure [cheaper is better most of the times]). MAC-OS, IOS, Microsoft are indeed trying to improve security,* but for many applications the sentence before applies. So cyber-warfare and cyber-attacks will exploit what they can, and there is so much in terms of security flaws in software in general, that you can not realistically make out what hack worked through '[[backdoor|a planned feature]]' and what is just a flaw in the software - if that is what the sentence wants to relate. I would try to rephrase that a bit.<br> |
| + | <nowiki>*</nowiki>at least for the average user<br> | ||
-- [[User:Sunvalley|Sunvalley]] ([[User talk:Sunvalley|talk]]) 22:55, 31 October 2022 (UTC) | -- [[User:Sunvalley|Sunvalley]] ([[User talk:Sunvalley|talk]]) 22:55, 31 October 2022 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 13:47, 1 November 2022
From the current lede of the article:
"Cyber attacks are a new form of large scale security holes, which suspiciously emerge simultaneously in software used by i.e government agencies, banks and microsoft."
I think the idea is right, but the wording is off. Security holes in software are always there. In the software/OS development world as it is, you practically can not defend against NSA/five eyes capabilities. Adding to that, was much discussed wit the 'Internet of things' devices, companies will look for 'features' that can be marketed, but will invest next to nothing for security, since that will not make any money (ie people are not willing to pay more [in general] for a device that is more secure [cheaper is better most of the times]). MAC-OS, IOS, Microsoft are indeed trying to improve security,* but for many applications the sentence before applies. So cyber-warfare and cyber-attacks will exploit what they can, and there is so much in terms of security flaws in software in general, that you can not realistically make out what hack worked through 'a planned feature' and what is just a flaw in the software - if that is what the sentence wants to relate. I would try to rephrase that a bit.
*at least for the average user
-- Sunvalley (talk) 22:55, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
