I read this hilarious Motherboard article the other night about a witch who claims she can use magic to drive out computer viruses. Sure, this article is humorous (at least to infosec people reading this blog). But I got to thinking that there are many products and services being seriously marketed in infosec that are no more effective than magic. In fact, on more than one occasion, a vendor has described a process to me as "nearly magic." Um, no. You've lost my attention. Go sell your magic beans to someone else. I don't need your beanstalk screwing up my security architecture.
I'm not sure which security firm (see what I did there?) will be the first to offer WaaS, but whoever it is would be wise not to take the advice of the real witch.
The witch says she "called in earth, air, fire, and water" to aid in clearing a virus. But every A+ technician working the bench at Geek Squad knows that at least three of those things are bad for computers. Something is already a little fishy about this technique.
Looking for the root cause? Feel "a snag"
However, she claims to be able to find where a virus got in. It's where she feels "a snag." I doubt I'll be using witchcraft in any Rendition Infosec incident response in the future. But the next time a lawyer asks me if I've explored every option, I'll point them to this article (all the while hoping they don't call in a witch or a psychic to uncover the logs that rolled over 6 months ago).
A little further into the interview, the witch is asked about demons infecting computers. I'm pretty sure the interviewer meant to say "daemons" instead of "demons" and everyone just got confused...
Let's get serious for a minute
This has been fun (for me at least), but let's seriously talk about the logical fallacy that she uses to deal with those who discount her work. She essentially says "before you can challenge me, you must first read The Spiral Dance" (paraphrasing here). She discounts the naysayers, saying "they say incredibly stupid things" and appears to presume it is their lack of knowledge that causes them to question her magic. This is an example of the "tu quoque" fallacy. Rather than addressing the merits of the argument, you say "your argument is ridiculous" and dismiss it.
Unfortunately, I see this approach used in infosec far too often. Infosec professionals may assume that those they are arguing with lack knowledge to "see the light" as it were. Sometimes this is true, but I caution you to use this (hopefully) humorous example to learn about logical fallacies so you can avoid them in your own work.
I'm not sure which security firm (see what I did there?) will be the first to offer WaaS, but whoever it is would be wise not to take the advice of the real witch.
The witch says she "called in earth, air, fire, and water" to aid in clearing a virus. But every A+ technician working the bench at Geek Squad knows that at least three of those things are bad for computers. Something is already a little fishy about this technique.
Looking for the root cause? Feel "a snag"
However, she claims to be able to find where a virus got in. It's where she feels "a snag." I doubt I'll be using witchcraft in any Rendition Infosec incident response in the future. But the next time a lawyer asks me if I've explored every option, I'll point them to this article (all the while hoping they don't call in a witch or a psychic to uncover the logs that rolled over 6 months ago).
A little further into the interview, the witch is asked about demons infecting computers. I'm pretty sure the interviewer meant to say "daemons" instead of "demons" and everyone just got confused...
Let's get serious for a minute
This has been fun (for me at least), but let's seriously talk about the logical fallacy that she uses to deal with those who discount her work. She essentially says "before you can challenge me, you must first read The Spiral Dance" (paraphrasing here). She discounts the naysayers, saying "they say incredibly stupid things" and appears to presume it is their lack of knowledge that causes them to question her magic. This is an example of the "tu quoque" fallacy. Rather than addressing the merits of the argument, you say "your argument is ridiculous" and dismiss it.
Unfortunately, I see this approach used in infosec far too often. Infosec professionals may assume that those they are arguing with lack knowledge to "see the light" as it were. Sometimes this is true, but I caution you to use this (hopefully) humorous example to learn about logical fallacies so you can avoid them in your own work.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.