{"id":631,"date":"2017-10-23T14:49:35","date_gmt":"2017-10-23T14:49:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/securitycurve.com\/?p=631"},"modified":"2017-10-23T14:49:35","modified_gmt":"2017-10-23T14:49:35","slug":"hack-back-is-not-active-defense","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/securitycurve.com\/?p=631","title":{"rendered":"Hack-back is NOT active defense"},"content":{"rendered":"

So the other day I tweeted a thing from Slate that systematically breaks down so-called “hack back”<\/a>; they call it the “worst idea in cybersecurity” and say they are “thunderstruck by how terrible [an idea] it is.”\u00a0 Go check it out if you haven’t seen it.\u00a0\u00a0I’ve commented about why hack back is dumb<\/a>\u00a0in this blog.\u00a0 I won’t rehash it yet again since a) I’ve been saying that for years (and despite rumors to the contrary do get tired of repeating myself) and b) it seems like Slate, the Register and now Bruce Schneier are now carrying this torch pretty effectively.<\/p>\n

However, I will point out something going on that I think makes sense to pay attention to.\u00a0 Specifically: hack back, as a thing, actually makes it harder to do the stuff that is actually valuable when it comes to active defense.\u00a0 By this,\u00a0 I mean that it simultaneously makes security as a discipline worse while providing little to no value. Let me spell out why so that you too can get angry about it and spend the morning fuming about the inanities of security policy-making.\u00a0 You’re welcome.<\/p>\n

First thing’s first, what do I mean by “active defense”?\u00a0 By this, I’m referring specifically to primarily three things:<\/p>\n