Apple's Mac, iPad dodge an ugly new NSA hacker bomb targeting majority of Windows PCs glob...

Posted:
in Mac OS X edited April 14
A series of previously unknown Windows hacking tools used by the U.S. National Security Agency has been leaked, enabling "zero day" exploits to be used against millions of Windows PCs to deface websites, lock up systems to demand a ransom payment or to steal emails and other data.




As noted in a report by Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai for Motherboard, the NSA tools were leaked by hacker group known as the "Shadow Brokers."

The package of exploits includes "Fuzzbunch," and easy-to-use hacking tool with basic instructions that even non-technical users could follow to gain control of PCs running multiple versions of Microsoft's Windows prior to the latest Windows 10, specifically Windows XP, Vista, 7 and 8 as well as server versions including NT, 2000, 2003, 2008 and 2012.

The report cited a former employee of the U.S. Department of Defense as saying "it's not safe to run an internet facing Windows box right now," and that the payload of exploits is "the worst thing since Snowden."

Motherboard previously cited comments from security architect Kevin Beaumont, who noted that "all of the Windows implants are new to VirusTotal [an online file scanning tool], which suggests they've not been seen before."

More Windows PCs are vulnerable vs. those on on modern software

According to web browser stats from NetMarketshare, only 25 percent of web users are using Microsoft's latest Windows 10 (which was released in the summer of 2015), while over 66 percent of active web users are using older versions of Windows that are vulnerable to the attacks launched by the released tools.

There are many Windows PCs that are connected to the Internet but do not generate web traffic--particularly back end servers and other utilitarian machines. A worm or virus could easily launch broad exploits at Windows users and find plenty of vulnerable machines to steal data from or recruit into global botnets of exploited PCs.

Microsoft has worked aggressively to upgrade users to Windows 10, but the vast majority of PCs worldwide remain stuck on older versions with known problems. The new cache of hacker tools makes it that much easier to exploit those users.

A spokesperson for Microsoft said that it is "reviewing the report and will take the necessary actions to protect our customers."

Apple's security through obscurity (and update superiority)

Apple's installed base of Macs and iPad users are not affected by exploits found in Windows (apart from Macs intentionally booted up into an old version of Windows by the owner). That's a feature Apple has long advertised for Macs, and has recently noted in its ads for iPad Pro.





In part, Apple's limited exposure to malware and exploits comes from its divergence from the monoculture of Windows (or Android) software, a sort of "security by obscurity," where the easiest to use hacking tools simply don't work because the platform isn't as easy to target as Windows PCs and Android devices are.

Apple's installed base of computer users has grown rapidly however. Horace Dediu of Asymco recently noted that there are about 100-150 million Macs in active use and an installed base of over 300 million iPads. That's about the same as the 400 million PCs in the installed base of Windows 10 that Microsoft cited at its Ignite conference last fall.

The difference is that there is at least another 400-600 million PCs that are running vulnerable versions of Windows. Apple also has an even larger installed base of iPhones, but most of those are updated.

So the larger reason why Macs and iOS devices are protected from the routine efforts to hack into Android and Windows is due to Apple's far faster ability to distribute new OS updates, which it does without cost. Apple's system update efforts have resulted in the majority of iOS users rapidly adopting the latest version and regular new patches between major updates.Macs and iOS devices are protected from the routine efforts to hack into Android and Windows due to Apple's far faster ability to distribute new OS updates

As of February 20th, Apple reports that 79 percent of iOS users are on the latest iOS 10, while another 16 percent are on iOS 9, both of which are at least as recent as Microsoft's Windows 10.

Apple does not appear to report macOS version adoption figures, but Go Squared reports that 44 percent of Macs are using the latest macOS Sierra while another 21 percent are on macOS El Capitan, both of which (65 percent total) are as new as Windows 10. The same site reports adoption of Windows 10 at 49 percent, with a nearly equal number still on Windows 7.

The same site reports that 89 percent of iOS users are on the newest iOS 10, as of April.

Google notes that as of April, only 4.9 percent of devices actively accessing Google Play are using the latest Android 7 Nougat, and only another 31 percent are on 2015's Android 5 Marshmallow, released alongside iOS 9. The majority of its active users are on versions of Android older than that, most of which will never be updated. Users in other regions, particularly China, are much less likely to use Google Play and even less likely to be updated to recent versions of the OS.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 26
    rob53rob53 Posts: 1,488member
    "Security through Obscurity"? I thought we got rid of that statement a long time ago. macOS and iOS are not obscure operating systems, at least not anymore. I have to wonder if Microsoft is actually behind this since they want everyone to upgrade to Windows 10. I'm seeing other articles about Microsoft's changing policies on how and on which platforms Windows is allowed to run. Adding this to the mix and you have to wonder. 
    Fatmanchasmmacplusplustyler82DilirXpscooter63chiabrian greenDeelronmuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 2 of 26
    robin huberrobin huber Posts: 2,924member
    How does locking/ransom work on a home computer? If it's locked, how can you use it to see how much to pay and who to send it to? If the ransom is more than a couple of grand, why not just buy a new Mac and restore from iCloud?
  • Reply 3 of 26
    macxpressmacxpress Posts: 2,703member
    How does locking/ransom work on a home computer? If it's locked, how can you use it to see how much to pay and who to send it to? If the ransom is more than a couple of grand, why not just buy a new Mac and restore from iCloud?
    A screen comes up and lets you know your computer is locked and gives directions on how to pay. I believe on a Mac (same may go for a PC) that all you have to do is create a different account and restore your stuff. This is why you either sync with iCloud or use some sort of backup (such as Time Machine). I think usually you need to go get money packets or something. You don't pay with credit card. Otherwise, you could always just to a chargeback. 
    edited April 14 watto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 26
    MacProMacPro Posts: 16,187member
    macxpress said:
    How does locking/ransom work on a home computer? If it's locked, how can you use it to see how much to pay and who to send it to? If the ransom is more than a couple of grand, why not just buy a new Mac and restore from iCloud?
    A screen comes up and lets you know your computer is locked and gives directions on how to pay. I believe on a Mac (same may go for a PC) that all you have to do is create a different account and restore your stuff. This is why you either sync with iCloud or use some sort of backup (such as Time Machine). I think usually you need to go get money packets or something. You don't pay with credit card. Otherwise, you could always just to a chargeback. 
    From what you say, you are saying there have been such ransom exploits for Mac users?  I didn't know that.
    anton zuykovpscooter63
  • Reply 5 of 26
    macxpressmacxpress Posts: 2,703member
    MacPro said:
    macxpress said:
    How does locking/ransom work on a home computer? If it's locked, how can you use it to see how much to pay and who to send it to? If the ransom is more than a couple of grand, why not just buy a new Mac and restore from iCloud?
    A screen comes up and lets you know your computer is locked and gives directions on how to pay. I believe on a Mac (same may go for a PC) that all you have to do is create a different account and restore your stuff. This is why you either sync with iCloud or use some sort of backup (such as Time Machine). I think usually you need to go get money packets or something. You don't pay with credit card. Otherwise, you could always just to a chargeback. 
    From what you say, you are saying there have been such ransom exploits for Mac users?  I didn't know that.
    I'm pretty sure I've heard of a Mac getting something before. 
    edited April 14
  • Reply 6 of 26
    chasmchasm Posts: 228member
    There are such things as ransomware threats for Macs, but they are generally fear-based rather than actually encrypting your entire hard drive (as is common for Windows). As for the article itself, I take *strong* issue with the nonsensical and widely-debunked "security through obscurity" nonsense. As noted *in the article itself,* there are 150M Macs in active use, 300M iPads, and at least 700M iPhones. While not as large as the Windows market, this is not by any measure "obscure." Only slightly less unsupported is the claim that it is merely Apple's ability to rapidly produce and convince users to install the latest updates (especially on iOS) that protects it. Simply put, no. That certainly helps, but the fact of the matter -- curiously unmentioned in this report -- is that Apple's operating systems are *designed with security in mind from the start,* rather than bolted on as they are with Windows. You can give some credit to macOS's UNIX roots for that, but the Mac and iOS operating systems and their variants have always paid more attention to security than its chief rivals, Google and Microsoft. Nobody's perfect, but some OSes are farther along the path, and that is largely by design. Apple's ability to deploy and have users install updates faster than others is part of that design; users know they can trust the updates (by and large), and not using the ridiculously-flawed "it's the carrier's job" model for distribution is also all part of the security consideration put into Apple's products. This is also why HomeKit is the *only* API you want for Internet of Things devices; it's all part of a company-wide vision for security, privacy, and user priority.
    macplusplusDilirXpropodcharlesgresStrangeDayspscooter63chiamagman1979Deelron
  • Reply 7 of 26
    "Security through obscurity" is the false sense of security that consists of hiding or renaming things. For example, if you're asked to rename the "admin" directory of your web site, this is criticized by security experts as "security through obscurity" because this is not how the security of your web site should be modelled.
    edited April 14 pscooter63
  • Reply 8 of 26
    I agree Apple has done better with security than Linux or Microsoft.  But Apple no longer has it easy.  They have a large number of products that are entering EoL (end of life) that are still in use.  Mainly IPhones and IPads...  

    From the customers prospective there are nothing wrong with these old devices... they still work fine.  But, they're going to become a major headache as Apple discontinues support (OS updates/security patches).  It will never be as bad as Android (under the current system) but it's going to become hundreds of millions of devices very fast.

    I hope Apple promotes trade ins aggressively or we're going to see a huge influx of malicious hackers targeting IOS which would be bad for everyone.

    With Microsoft it's a love hate relationship.  Supposedly Win10 is much better with regards to security, but I have trust issues with regards to tracking.  Everyone seems to want your data these days, and at the same time the "pro business" agenda of the govt is weakening consumer protections.  I do like Microsoft's Server products...  Microsoft's licensing for desktop/laptop products is asinine.  Everyone should be running the "Enterprise" version of their product.  Do they think corporations are the only ones that need things like full disk encryption?

    With IOS, Apple is no longer a member of the "obscurity" crowd.  OS X still has a bit of an advantage over Windows, in that regard.  But relying on "Security through Obscurity" is a false sense of security.
  • Reply 9 of 26
    revenantrevenant Posts: 429member
    remember when apple said to the FBI that creating a backdoor to iOS would end up letting the bad guys in, and the FBI said, "nah- it won't"?

    well--"Prepare to put mustard on those words, for you will soon be consuming them along with this slice of humble pie that comes direct from the oven of shame, set at gas mark egg on your face."
    edited April 15 GeorgeBMacmagman1979Deelronanton zuykovlordjohnwhorfin
  • Reply 10 of 26
    https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/msrc/2017/04/14/protecting-customers-and-evaluating-risk/
    From Microsoft themselves.

    "A spokesperson for Microsoft said that it is "reviewing the report and will take the necessary actions to protect our customers." yet they had a blog post up YESTERDAY already.
    edited April 17 mocking60441839singularity
  • Reply 11 of 26
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 1,684member
    revenant said:
    remember when apple said to the FBI that creating a backdoor to iOS would end up letting the bad guys in, and the FBI said, "nah- it won't"?

    well--"Prepare to put mustard on those words, for you will soon be consuming them along with this slice of humble pie that comes direct from the oven of shame, set at gas mark egg on your face."
    I was watching that episode just a few days ago! :-D

    revenant
  • Reply 12 of 26
    "Security through obscurity" is the false sense of security that consists of hiding or renaming things. For example, if you're asked to rename the "admin" directory of your web site, this is criticized by security experts as "security through obscurity" because this is not how the security of your web site should be modelled.
    Security "experts" can criticize it all they want -- but it reflects more on them than the system they are criticizing.  The truth is:  hackers and thieves (particularly today where hacking has been commercialized for profit more than fun) seek the most profit for the least amount of work and trouble.

    So, just as the human body has multiple layers of protection (starting with the skin), so does an effective security system.   If one of those layers is "obscurity" or perhaps even a physical layer, an intelligent "expert" will say "Great!" -- while somebody trying to sell you something may tell you:  "That's worthless.  Here!  Buy MY product!"
  • Reply 13 of 26
    MacProMacPro Posts: 16,187member
    macxpress said:
    MacPro said:
    macxpress said:
    How does locking/ransom work on a home computer? If it's locked, how can you use it to see how much to pay and who to send it to? If the ransom is more than a couple of grand, why not just buy a new Mac and restore from iCloud?
    A screen comes up and lets you know your computer is locked and gives directions on how to pay. I believe on a Mac (same may go for a PC) that all you have to do is create a different account and restore your stuff. This is why you either sync with iCloud or use some sort of backup (such as Time Machine). I think usually you need to go get money packets or something. You don't pay with credit card. Otherwise, you could always just to a chargeback. 
    From what you say, you are saying there have been such ransom exploits for Mac users?  I didn't know that.
    I'm pretty sure I've heard of a Mac getting something before. 
    Yes, I also read some possibly dubious, alarmist news item last year and Kaspersky of course 'had the solution' but I never read anything confirming any genuine cases of innocent victims in the same way common to Windows systems.  That said if Mac users are using BitTorrent and entering their Mac's password to allow installations of pirate-ware anything is possible.  You can also walk off a cliff if you are so predisposed!  ;)
  • Reply 14 of 26
    clexmanclexman Posts: 119member
    So AI, plan on updating the article to correct that you jumped the gun?
  • Reply 15 of 26
    mocking60441839mocking60441839 Posts: 1unconfirmed, member
  • Reply 16 of 26
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 1,356member

    Motherboard previously cited comments from security architect Kevin Beaumont, who noted that 
    In part, Apple's limited exposure to malware and exploits comes from its divergence from the monoculture of Windows (or Android) software, a sort of "security by obscurity," where the easiest to use hacking tools simply don't work because the platform isn't as easy to target as Windows PCs and Android devices are.
    1) That isn't what security by obscurity means. The phrase doesn't refer to technical ease and instead refers to whether there's a large enough user base payload. For a long while people claimed OS X didn't have viruses because the target audience was too small (security by obscurity). Yet, today OS X has a much larger audience, far more than classic MacOS, but fewer viruses than classic MacOS. Why? Because it's much harder to target (not security by obscurity). 

    2) It's a myth anyway, there is no security from obscurity, and relying on it will result in failure. Instead it must be technically difficult. OS X and iOS show this in action -- they now have large install bases, yet still no viruses, because they're much harder to exploit. That's real security, not this obscurity jumbo jumbo. 
    edited April 15 pscooter63chiaai46
  • Reply 17 of 26

    Motherboard previously cited comments from security architect Kevin Beaumont, who noted that 
    In part, Apple's limited exposure to malware and exploits comes from its divergence from the monoculture of Windows (or Android) software, a sort of "security by obscurity," where the easiest to use hacking tools simply don't work because the platform isn't as easy to target as Windows PCs and Android devices are.
    1) That isn't what security by obscurity means. The phrase doesn't refer to technical ease and instead refers to whether there's a large enough user base payload. For a long while people claimed OS X didn't have viruses because the target audience was too small (security by obscurity). Yet, today OS X has a much larger audience, far more than classic MacOS, but fewer viruses than classic MacOS. Why? Because it's much harder to target (not security by obscurity). 

    2) It's a myth anyway, there is no security from obscurity, and relying on it will result in failure. Instead it must be technically difficult. OS X and iOS show this in action -- they now have large install bases, yet still no viruses, because they're much harder to exploit. That's real security, not this obscurity jumbo jumbo. 
    Wrong - on all counts!
    1) Security by Obscurity can mean whatever it means within the context.   Having a small target base is ONE meaning -- but hardly the ONLY meaning.  It can also mean, for instance, that if a potential hacker does not know that you have something he may want, that he will probably direct his attack elsewhere...   
    ... A good analogy is putting your Christmas presents in the trunk rather than lay them out on your front seat when you park your car...  Which is more likely to result in having them stolen?

    2) You assume that a target environment can have only one type and one layer of security...  If so, no matter how strong that layer may be, it is more vulnerable than a system with multiple layers...
    ... Very simply, you can add as many layers of security as you feel necessary to keep your private information private.

    A wise security advisor once told me:  "If a thief wants to get in...   he will.   The trick is to make it hard enough for him that he goes elsewhere."
    ...  That's sort of the reasoning behind putting a security sign or "beware of dog" sign in your front yard even though you have neither a security system nor a dog:  direct the thieves to your neighbors.
  • Reply 18 of 26
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 1,356member

    Motherboard previously cited comments from security architect Kevin Beaumont, who noted that 
    In part, Apple's limited exposure to malware and exploits comes from its divergence from the monoculture of Windows (or Android) software, a sort of "security by obscurity," where the easiest to use hacking tools simply don't work because the platform isn't as easy to target as Windows PCs and Android devices are.
    1) That isn't what security by obscurity means. The phrase doesn't refer to technical ease and instead refers to whether there's a large enough user base payload. For a long while people claimed OS X didn't have viruses because the target audience was too small (security by obscurity). Yet, today OS X has a much larger audience, far more than classic MacOS, but fewer viruses than classic MacOS. Why? Because it's much harder to target (not security by obscurity). 

    2) It's a myth anyway, there is no security from obscurity, and relying on it will result in failure. Instead it must be technically difficult. OS X and iOS show this in action -- they now have large install bases, yet still no viruses, because they're much harder to exploit. That's real security, not this obscurity jumbo jumbo. 
    Wrong - on all counts!
    1) Security by Obscurity can mean whatever it means within the context.   Having a small target base is ONE meaning -- but hardly the ONLY meaning.  It can also mean, for instance, that if a potential hacker does not know that you have something he may want, that he will probably direct his attack elsewhere...   
    ... A good analogy is putting your Christmas presents in the trunk rather than lay them out on your front seat when you park your car...  Which is more likely to result in having them stolen?

    2) You assume that a target environment can have only one type and one layer of security...  If so, no matter how strong that layer may be, it is more vulnerable than a system with multiple layers...
    ... Very simply, you can add as many layers of security as you feel necessary to keep your private information private.

    A wise security advisor once told me:  "If a thief wants to get in...   he will.   The trick is to make it hard enough for him that he goes elsewhere."
    ...  That's sort of the reasoning behind putting a security sign or "beware of dog" sign in your front yard even though you have neither a security system nor a dog:  direct the thieves to your neighbors.
    Nope, not wrong on all accounts. 

    Like I said, OS X has no viruses and fewer attacks because it's harder to defeat, not because there's too little of it in the marketplace. Those who claimed OS X didn't have viruses because the hackers weren't interested in the install base were using the "security by obscurity" myth.

    I said no such thing about layers of security -- that's a straw man you made up and attributed to me. I did say that OS security by obscurity is a myth, and that good systems are those built with security in mind and try to make exploits as difficult as possible. It's why iOS hasn't had near the security woes as earlier versions of Windows at comparable install base sizes. iOS is harder to compromise.

    Don't quit your day job and leave software to the pros. It's not like putting presents in the trunk, I assure you.
    edited April 15 magman1979pscooter63chia
  • Reply 19 of 26
    nhtnht Posts: 3,415member

    Motherboard previously cited comments from security architect Kevin Beaumont, who noted that 
    In part, Apple's limited exposure to malware and exploits comes from its divergence from the monoculture of Windows (or Android) software, a sort of "security by obscurity," where the easiest to use hacking tools simply don't work because the platform isn't as easy to target as Windows PCs and Android devices are.
    1) That isn't what security by obscurity means. The phrase doesn't refer to technical ease and instead refers to whether there's a large enough user base payload. For a long while people claimed OS X didn't have viruses because the target audience was too small (security by obscurity). Yet, today OS X has a much larger audience, far more than classic MacOS, but fewer viruses than classic MacOS. Why? Because it's much harder to target (not security by obscurity). 

    2) It's a myth anyway, there is no security from obscurity, and relying on it will result in failure. Instead it must be technically difficult. OS X and iOS show this in action -- they now have large install bases, yet still no viruses, because they're much harder to exploit. That's real security, not this obscurity jumbo jumbo. 
    Wrong - on all counts!
    1) Security by Obscurity can mean whatever it means within the context.   Having a small target base is ONE meaning -- but hardly the ONLY meaning.  It can also mean, for instance, that if a potential hacker does not know that you have something he may want, that he will probably direct his attack elsewhere...   
    ... A good analogy is putting your Christmas presents in the trunk rather than lay them out on your front seat when you park your car...  Which is more likely to result in having them stolen?

    2) You assume that a target environment can have only one type and one layer of security...  If so, no matter how strong that layer may be, it is more vulnerable than a system with multiple layers...
    ... Very simply, you can add as many layers of security as you feel necessary to keep your private information private.

    A wise security advisor once told me:  "If a thief wants to get in...   he will.   The trick is to make it hard enough for him that he goes elsewhere."
    ...  That's sort of the reasoning behind putting a security sign or "beware of dog" sign in your front yard even though you have neither a security system nor a dog:  direct the thieves to your neighbors.
    Nope, not wrong on all accounts. 

    Like I said, OS X has no viruses and fewer attacks because it's harder to defeat, not because there's too little of it in the marketplace. Those who claimed OS X didn't have viruses because the hackers weren't interested in the install base were using the "security by obscurity" myth.

    I said no such thing about layers of security -- that's a straw man you made up and attributed to me. I did say that OS security by obscurity is a myth, and that good systems are those built with security in mind and try to make exploits as difficult as possible. It's why iOS hasn't had near the security woes as earlier versions of Windows at comparable install base sizes. iOS is harder to compromise.

    Don't quit your day job and leave software to the pros. It's not like putting presents in the trunk, I assure you.
    Given that I'm going through the process of securing my software and the recommendation is to remove log messages and error returns to reduce information provided to potential attackers there is certainly value in obscurity for security.  If they can hit your interfaces and if your error messages are helpful then they can more easily tease out potential attack vectors.

    This is my day job and I am a pro and it's pretty obvious that you've never gone through a security audit before (we use fortify). 

    Minimizing the attack surface and obscuring what's left is very much part of software security.  As noted by GeorgeBMac obscurity is one layer of OS security.  

    For example the UNIX STIG includes disabling Core dumps since it might include sensitive information or provide insight in attacking a particular app.  It obscures the internal workings of an app to make finding exploitable vulnerabilities harder.
    GeorgeBMac
  • Reply 20 of 26

    Motherboard previously cited comments from security architect Kevin Beaumont, who noted that 
    In part, Apple's limited exposure to malware and exploits comes from its divergence from the monoculture of Windows (or Android) software, a sort of "security by obscurity," where the easiest to use hacking tools simply don't work because the platform isn't as easy to target as Windows PCs and Android devices are.
    1) That isn't what security by obscurity means. The phrase doesn't refer to technical ease and instead refers to whether there's a large enough user base payload. For a long while people claimed OS X didn't have viruses because the target audience was too small (security by obscurity). Yet, today OS X has a much larger audience, far more than classic MacOS, but fewer viruses than classic MacOS. Why? Because it's much harder to target (not security by obscurity). 

    2) It's a myth anyway, there is no security from obscurity, and relying on it will result in failure. Instead it must be technically difficult. OS X and iOS show this in action -- they now have large install bases, yet still no viruses, because they're much harder to exploit. That's real security, not this obscurity jumbo jumbo. 
    Wrong - on all counts!
    1) Security by Obscurity can mean whatever it means within the context.   Having a small target base is ONE meaning -- but hardly the ONLY meaning.  It can also mean, for instance, that if a potential hacker does not know that you have something he may want, that he will probably direct his attack elsewhere...   
    ... A good analogy is putting your Christmas presents in the trunk rather than lay them out on your front seat when you park your car...  Which is more likely to result in having them stolen?

    2) You assume that a target environment can have only one type and one layer of security...  If so, no matter how strong that layer may be, it is more vulnerable than a system with multiple layers...
    ... Very simply, you can add as many layers of security as you feel necessary to keep your private information private.

    A wise security advisor once told me:  "If a thief wants to get in...   he will.   The trick is to make it hard enough for him that he goes elsewhere."
    ...  That's sort of the reasoning behind putting a security sign or "beware of dog" sign in your front yard even though you have neither a security system nor a dog:  direct the thieves to your neighbors.
    Nope, not wrong on all accounts. 

    Like I said, OS X has no viruses and fewer attacks because it's harder to defeat, not because there's too little of it in the marketplace. Those who claimed OS X didn't have viruses because the hackers weren't interested in the install base were using the "security by obscurity" myth.

    I said no such thing about layers of security -- that's a straw man you made up and attributed to me. I did say that OS security by obscurity is a myth, and that good systems are those built with security in mind and try to make exploits as difficult as possible. It's why iOS hasn't had near the security woes as earlier versions of Windows at comparable install base sizes. iOS is harder to compromise.

    Don't quit your day job and leave software to the pros. It's not like putting presents in the trunk, I assure you.
    Sorry amateur...  I am a pro...

    And, I learned long ago not to fall into the trap that you have fallen into.  Namely, thinking in binary terms:  that you either rely on "security by obscurity" or nothing...

    But, you are correct that you failed to account for layers of security and instead fell into either/or thinking   
Sign In or Register to comment.