Well, that is the point of the thought exercise. :) But the goal is to have "policy people" go through it so they understand WHY the concept of "banning hacking on critical infrastructure" is mostly-futile as opposed to just having to believe us "tech people".
You could, of course, do a cap-and-trade structure on the tokens, such that you only start with a certain amount of them, and get to trade for the rest, a-la-bitcoin. This would force you to prioritize where your key infrastructure is, but the idea might be a bit painful and expensive such that policy people will realize there MUST be a better way, which is when you suggest that instead we do other, more sensible things. :) -dave On 3/15/2016 9:44 AM, Konrads Smelkovs wrote: > The logical conclusion of placing "don'thackmebro!" tokens on > sensitive computers is that every GOV computer even remotely concerned > with the notion of the critical infrastructure will have it leaving > your adversary no choice to ignore them. > -- > Konrads Smelkovs > Applied IT sorcery. > > > On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 3:31 PM, dave aitel <[email protected]> wrote: >> http://cybersecpolitics.blogspot.com/2016/03/cyber-norms-futility-of-blacklisting.html >> >> If you disagree with this post, please spam here instead of twitter, >> which has only terse horribleness as its argument protocols. :) >> >> -dave >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Dailydave mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.immunityinc.com/mailman/listinfo/dailydave _______________________________________________ Dailydave mailing list [email protected] https://lists.immunityinc.com/mailman/listinfo/dailydave
