I got flamed pretty hard for pointing out that this sample size really needs to be in the title, but it needs to be said. Thank you. Sixteen people is basically a forum thread, and not a very popular one.
It’s still useful information and a good read, but a lot of people don’t click through to the article, they just remember the title and move on.
N=16 developers
I feel like there should be a third box with Wall Street raider types, for scrapers that use Selenium browser automation.
I don’t think it’s entirely unblockable - adsense seems to know to only serve unmonetized PSA ads - but I think it’s very difficult to discriminate between “this is a real browser controlled by an end user” and “this is a real browser being controlled by automated test software”.
I can’t tell if I communicated badly or I’m really just off the mark. But we already encrypt storage at rest, when we have valuable or sensitive data, because of the risk that thieves might read stolen data.
So take that a step farther. A thief can “know a guy” who spent a few hundred on soldering equipment and watched some tutorials on YouTube. We don’t consider sensitive data to be unavailable to thieves just because it isn’t readable via plug and play.
Wait, desoldering a chip and dumping contents makes an attacker “resourceful”? A sub-$50 hot air rework station (or $330-ish if you don’t want one that’ll burn your house down) and a $50 programming cable is … not a lot of resources.
Love this, 100% accurate. QA people are amazing, protect us from ourselves in so many ways we didn’t even think of.
Devs make mistakes. We want to put up guardrails so mistakes don’t hurt us so much.
Please don’t deliberately line the guardrails with barbed wire.