As my grandfather was wont to say, locks are for honest people.
Most forms of security are theater and used as a deterrent.
If your door is locked, and your neighbors isn’t, well your lock deterred them.
Then again, if someone means you in particular harm, they’ll get in, bricks are cheap and most home windows are focused on limiting thermal transfer, not being overly durable (say under an attack). It may not be quiet, you may be able to defend yourself or run or whatever, but the lock was not a deterrent.
So yes, lock your doors, encrypt everything you can, keep devices updated, etc. But it won’t stop a determined bad actor if they have reasonable capabilities to do you harm.
The problem with security, especially cyber security, is that you have to find a medium between secure and usable. Most companies, in my experience, tend to loosen security in the name of usability.
I’m not an expert, but I’m studying in that direction with my limited free time (and more to the point, energy and mental health)
SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 months ago
I think you vastly underestimate modern encryption. I would recommend looking up concepts and math from encryption, it makes more sense for why thinking that practically unbreakable encryption is very much possible once you do.
It’s why governments want to implement back-doors, because they are not actually capable of breaking it more directly.
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Did you not read the article? It has nothing to do with backdoors.
SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 months ago
…it’s literally about accusing NSA of trying to implement back-doors for quantum resistant encryption.
I have no idea what you’re trying to get at.
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 8 months ago
NIST is giving incorrect information. That will not enable back doors. And it is only a matter of time before that doesn’t matter. I have no idea why you think there is such a thing as an unbreakable code.