logoalt Hacker News

gck1yesterday at 11:10 PM1 replyview on HN

I've got zero knowledge of bio, so can't answer that. But with cyber the answer is very simple - the attackers already have more cyber-offense capabilities and there's no putting it back.

Open/closed doesn't matter that much. You can get closed models to do a lot of cyber harm, even with all the guardrails, which currently are heavily skewed towards more false positives.

The only effective control is to level the playing field. If both offense and defense have access to the same capabilities, then we're relatively back where we started.

If you want to ensure chaos, then you do what Dario is proposing to do - create gates that attackers can bypass and defenders can not.


Replies

ajyoonyesterday at 11:16 PM

In cybersecurity, a level playing field favors the attacker. Trusted access programs give defenders access to tools they need. It's not perfect (because there is an extremely long tail of defenders who are not technically savvy enough to get on these programs and use the tools), but it's better than total access.

The bio angle is very important here too; in that context the imbalance favors the attackers much more.

show 3 replies