> im not sure i understand what this means, can you provide an example and why its controversial?
There is a longstanding tradition of vendors of mediocre 'security' systems using trade secrets/restrictive license terms/anti-hacking laws to cover up their mediocrity.
If you're shopping for a garage door opener and one vendor publicly documents their security system and well known experts have given it their thumbs up, while another vendor says their system is secret and has sued people for attempting to reverse engineer it? Knowledgeable folk would have far more trust in the former than the latter.
still dont get it. are you saying the former is susceptible to layering attacks where they get people to drop their guard? or that the latter which is secretive is to conceal its actual use
There is a longstanding tradition of vendors of mediocre 'security' systems using trade secrets/restrictive license terms/anti-hacking laws to cover up their mediocrity.
If you're shopping for a garage door opener and one vendor publicly documents their security system and well known experts have given it their thumbs up, while another vendor says their system is secret and has sued people for attempting to reverse engineer it? Knowledgeable folk would have far more trust in the former than the latter.