Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

It may be argued that a Ford Model-T (one of the earliest and probably the simplest of all mass-produced vehicles in the early 20th Century: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Model_T ) had no "security boundary" at all, and that conversely, the most modern vehicle with the latest radio frequency based remote lock and key (aka "Smart Key") -- is more "secure" (has more of a "security boundary")...

...but if so, is that asserted "security boundary" really an actual security boundary(?)

If the security boundary or "security boundary" -- is opaque in how it functions; if it is a "black box": (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_box); if no one (other than potentially a few people who work for the manufacturer, or exist at the company subcontracting to build their Smart Key component (if the Smart Key is subcontracted/outsourced)) understands exactly how it works, then is it really "secure"?

(If so, then that sounds eerily similar to the "obscurity is good" (aka "transparency bad") side of the "Security Through Obscurity" debate that the Internet had, like 5, 10, 20+ years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_through_obscurity#Cri...)

Why not read the following:

"Gone in 20 seconds: how ‘smart keys’ have fuelled a new wave of car crime":

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/feb/24/smart-keys-car...

And you tell me?

My conclusion:

Perhaps less "security" (less of an asserted "security boundary") -- is actually more actual security -- at least in some cases -- at least in the case of the Ford Model-T...




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: