@dinodaizovi No, I agree, it's best to not know about it! At least when you don't know you feel like you're secure, even if you're not.
-
-
Replying to @dinodaizovi
@dinodaizovi Agreed, because attackers can't buy vulns from exploit vendors (!!), so if good guys would just be quiet we would all be safe!1 reply 3 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @dinodaizovi
@dinodaizovi Yeah, because exploit vendors are usually dumb, and good guys are better off remaining in blissful ignorance. So be quiet!!1 reply 2 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @dinodaizovi
@dinodaizovi Now you can make an informed decision. You can contact your vendor, take mitigating steps, etc.2 replies 2 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @dinodaizovi
@dinodaizovi If your car has a design flaw, you don't want to know about it because more information makes the decision more complicated?2 replies 2 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @taviso
@taviso@dinodaizovi more information doesn't necessarily help the defender, and it never helps a user, but it always helps adversaries.4 replies 7 retweets 3 likes
@DonAndrewBailey @dinodaizovi Agreed, users are just dumb passive consumers. Let's not scare them with too much information.
-
-
Replying to @taviso
@taviso@dinodaizovi presuming intelligence equates to computer intelligence is flawed. Are you an expert in automotive engineering? ;)1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DonAndrewBailey
@taviso@dinodaizovi consider users have a finite amount of time/expertise to evaluate the vast information we've trained for years to know0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
End of conversation
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.