"Wally" wrote in message ...
Capt. NealŪ wrote:
You sound like Gaynz. You need to ask yourself,
"Am I important enough for some hacker to want to
get into my system?" Probably not.
This is essentially a variation on 'security through obscurity', and is not
a real defence against being hacked.
Yes it is! Hackers have better things to do with their time than
waste it hacking into mine or Mooron's worthless computer.
What would they get - nothing worthwhile to be sure.
Moreover, your question is fallacious, being predicated on the notion that
only 'important' systems face being hacked. I'd invite you to define
'important' in this context, but I guarantee that you cannot. There are too
many hackers, with too many motives to establish even a range of
definitions. To be clear: simply being hackable is a measure of
'importance'.
For the same reason bank robbers don't rob day care centers, hackers
don't hack sites for which there is no reason to hack. Hacking can be
very time consuming. You make an investment in time. You expect some
return for your time.
Letting a worm or a trojan loose on some weenie too stupid to secure
his computer is not hacking. It's more like pestering.
The only safe assumption to make is that it *is* important enough for some
hacker, somewhere, to attempt an exploit. Ergo, the question should be: Is
my system open enough for some hacker to get in?
Wrong again Wally! There are no safe assumptions. One plays the odds.
That is reality. The odds are some schmuck's personal computer has
very little chance of being hacked.
CN
TG42's mentor. (TG42 hacked the so-called unhackable Swiss Banks. They paid
her to attempt break their security and she accomplished it in less than two weeks,
undetected other than proving it by transferring ten million dollars from one account to
another and back.)
|