Cliché: Security through obscurity (again)
This post keeps popping up in my timeline. It's wrong. The phrase "security through/by security" has become such a cliché that it's lost all meaning. When somebody says it, they are almost certainly saying a dumb thing, regardless if they support it or are trying to debunk it.Let's go back to first principles, namely Kerckhoff's Principle from the 1800s that states cryptography should be secure even if everything is known about it except the key. In other words, there exists no double-secret military-grade encryption with secret algorithms. Today's military crypto is public crypto.
Let's apply this to port knocking. This is not a layer of obscurity, as proposed by the above post, but a layer of security. Applying Kerkhoff's Principle, it should work even if everything is known about the port knocking algorithm except the sequence of ports being knocked.
Kerkhoff's Principle is based on a few simple observations. Two relevant ones today are:
* things are not nearly as obscure as you thinkI (as an attacker) know that many sites use port knocking. Therefore, if I get no response from an IP address (which I have reason Continue reading
* obscurity often impacts your friends more than your enemies