> I'd bet it's secure enough against anything that is not the NSA / equivalent foreign agencies. Now would I bet against those big players? Certainly not.
Which is another shortcut that boils down to saying "nothing is secure".
I don't think I'd feel (or be) much less safe/secure if an antagonistic nation developed such a thing and mine didn't. I would certainly feel less safe and secure if my nation had this capability regardless of whether or not others did.
> When you consider the potential implications, and possible scenarios, from a security perspective you have to assume that they're not just "possible" but a reality.
No you don't. You definitely don't want to assume otherwise and you spend the time derisking and investigating, but if you have zero evidence to support the situation you don't just consider it the case anyways.
> Playing devils advocate for a moment. How else do you test the robustness of the human process to prevent bad actors? Don’t you need someone to attempt to introduce a security hole to know that you are robust to this kind of attack?
How do you test that the White House perimeters are secure, or that the president is adequately protected by the Secret Service?
>> We always have to assume worst case for security vulnerabilities, it's kind of the whole job of being a security researcher to determine what could have happened.
Many people will be annoyed by this "assume the worst" drama.
For example, drinking too much water, if we assume the worst, can kill you.
Also, walking around can kill you, if we assume the worst.
Also, just being around can kill you, if we assume the worst, hey, you could die of a stroke.
So, how is this "assume the worst" statement useful?
> But a nefarious state (fascist, communist, dictatorial) will always use ‘safety’, ‘security’ as a concern and an argument to block and jail.
So what? Are there not valid reasons to bring up "safety" and "security"?
Unless you're claiming we're dealing with a "nefarious state", this statement doesn't carry any weight. For that matter even nefarious states may have valid safety concerns, including preventing orbital debris.
Otherwise known as “security”, yes
reply