Why older tech is sometimes safer from hackers
1–10 of 87 posts
Re: Why older tech is sometimes safer from hackers
#2MS-DOS: Over 45 years, and STILL NO remote holes in the default install!
Re: Why older tech is sometimes safer from hackers
#3[deleted]
Re: Why older tech is sometimes safer from hackers
#4>But the team picked an older software version for their honeypot that had been upgraded multiple times since its release and, consequently, no hackers bothered to target it. "When we upgraded it to the new one, we had all the attacks we wanted," recalls Bishop. "I thought it was so amusing."
It feels like fantasy imo
While I could understand using outdated or not popular protocols, then software with known vulns seems crazy when we are living in world of automated, ai assisted scanners
Re: Why older tech is sometimes safer from hackers
#5Makes it harder to catch you in a general sweep, but it probably makes it much easier if anyone decides to target you specifically. How good a tradeoff that is varies from person to person. And the difficulty of targeting a specific person is changing in an AI world. I wouldn't try to characterize it any farther than that, just to observe that it is changing. "Hey AI go individually research and target county clerks for getting direct access to their {specific system}" is much more practical today than it was 10 years ago, and will be even more so 10 years from now.
Re: Why older tech is sometimes safer from hackers
#6I understand BBC may not have the technical background to critically assess this approach, but whoever using Eudora (I loved it in 2001 btw) for security should get their credentials removed via King's order. Security through "obsolescence" is no different from security through obscurity - therefore, it doesn't work. Somebody not bothering to look for holes in your software doesn't mean they don't exist - in the age of Claude - I am pretty sure I can destroy your legacy software in minutes.
Re: Why older tech is sometimes safer from hackers
#7>But the team picked an older software version for their honeypot that had been upgraded multiple times since its release and, consequently, no hackers bothered to target it. "When we upgraded it to the new one, we had all the attacks we wanted," recalls Bishop. "I thought it was so amusing." It feels like fantasy imo While I could understand using outdated or not popular protocols, then software with known vulns see…
Let's say your security budget is pretty limited, and you can say with relative certainly that there's only a 0.1% chance of any adversary bothering to check the known flaws in your FossileWare(tm) Firewall in a given month.
Vs.how many dire flaws have been found in big-name security products in the past year, that even a low-budget adversary is likely to be regularly checking for?
Re: Why older tech is sometimes safer from hackers
#8It's incredible how far back the surveillance state goes - GSM mobile phones have an IMEI number that's tied to the handset - and the SIM is tied to the subscriber, and your phone broadcasts imei to neighboring towers constantly.
I haven't really gotten really into this, but from what I can tell, anything that has to do with mobile phones is strictly worse in terms of anonimity than Wifi.
At least anything that ties a Wifi connection to you you can change in an OS setting, but if you get into faking IMEI/SIM stuff, that can very quickly get you charged with an actual crime.
Re: Why older tech is sometimes safer from hackers
#9It's incredible how far back the surveillance state goes - GSM mobile phones have an IMEI number that's tied to the handset - and the SIM is tied to the subscriber, and your phone broadcasts imei to neighboring towers constantly. I haven't really gotten really into this, but from what I can tell, anything that has to do with mobile phones is strictly worse in terms of anonimity than Wifi. At least anything that ties…
One of the things about mobile phone is that there's 2 OSes on the phone: one that handles the phone stuff and the other that you as a user actually interact with. What's really scary about it is that the OS we do not think about is often licensed to the manufacturer (Apple, Samsung, etc.), closed-source, and dated. There's a lot of security firms that sell fake cell towers to law enforcement and governments and that gives them access to all of the data you send over the network. In older formats like 2G there was no encryption on anything sent over the wire.
If you dig into the fake cell tower rabbit hole you'll find what you're talking about to be an even worse problem.
Re: Why older tech is sometimes safer from hackers
#10>But the team picked an older software version for their honeypot that had been upgraded multiple times since its release and, consequently, no hackers bothered to target it. "When we upgraded it to the new one, we had all the attacks we wanted," recalls Bishop. "I thought it was so amusing." It feels like fantasy imo While I could understand using outdated or not popular protocols, then software with known vulns see…
Let's say your security budget is pretty limited, and you can say with relative certainly that there's only a 0.1% chance of any adversary bothering to check the known flaws in your FossileWare(tm) Firewall in a given month. Vs.how many dire flaws have been found in big-name security products in the past year, that even a low-budget adversary is likely to be regularly checking for?
There is no human making a decision on what attacks to run. They check for literally everything. 20 years ago, I ran a web server and would run 'tail -f' on the access logs. I watched the bots sending requests for files that only exist on linux, then send requests for files that only exist on windows. They don't know what kind of system they are hacking. They just know that there is a computer at that IP address.
There are databases that list every known flaw in existence, and the bots just go down the list checking each and every one. And if it doesn't work, in 5 minutes, they'll run those same tests again as if something changed in those 5 minutes.