The actual notion of “security through obscurity” (that will surely come up on Google if their AI bullshittery hasn’t screwed up completely…) for Linux is insane because open source is the polar opposite. By that definition proprietary code is actually much more linked to the concept.
The often more unprecise and colloquial usage I thus assumed you were using doesn’t apply either, for the reasons I summarised.
So which imaginary definition of “security through obscurity” are you using and assuming that it will come up on Google when none of the real ones makes any sense?
In security engineering, security through obscurity is the practice of concealing the details or mechanisms of a system to enhance its security. This approach relies on the principle of hiding something in plain sight, akin to a magician’s sleight of hand or the use of camouflage. It diverges from traditional security methods, such as physical locks, and is more about obscuring information or characteristics to deter potential threats. Examples of this practice include disguising sensitive information within commonplace items, like a piece of paper in a book, or altering digital footprints, such as spoofing a web browser’s version number. While not a standalone solution, security through obscurity can complement other security measures in certain scenarios.
You don’t know what you’re talking about - please stop. It’s embarrassing. It’s a long-standing industry term not some weird phrase I just made up. Nobody is saying “Linux is obscure”.
You could have just said that you don’t know what “security through obscurity” is.
You are right. I don’t know what your personal definition of “security through obscurity” is as it’s very obviously not matching actual reality.
Just google the term next time rather than embarrassing yourself.
Yes, please do.
The actual notion of “security through obscurity” (that will surely come up on Google if their AI bullshittery hasn’t screwed up completely…) for Linux is insane because open source is the polar opposite. By that definition proprietary code is actually much more linked to the concept.
The often more unprecise and colloquial usage I thus assumed you were using doesn’t apply either, for the reasons I summarised.
So which imaginary definition of “security through obscurity” are you using and assuming that it will come up on Google when none of the real ones makes any sense?
OMG.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_through_obscurity
You don’t know what you’re talking about - please stop. It’s embarrassing. It’s a long-standing industry term not some weird phrase I just made up. Nobody is saying “Linux is obscure”.