That doesn't make any sense, attackers already need to avoid detection, and defenders can already reimage and patch or mitigate. This "persistence" thing just seems buzzwordy to me.
Hah, it was rhetorical, it's not common at all. This kind of minor inconvenience happens literally all the time, some patch breaks some technique - exploitation still continues, attackers simply adjust.
-
-
If the defender can force the attacker to have to use a different technique then that's still a win for the defender.
-
Disagree, mitigations are attack surface too, they add complexity and technical debt, so their value must be carefully considered. It's trivial to force attackers to incur one time costs, but it's not free for defenders. The benefit here is pretty negligible.
- 20 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.