Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Those services are honeypots by definition. It would be naive to think that they never get hacked. It's only a matter of time until they do. If they're competent and responsible enough they'll notice and disclose it publicly, but I reckon that most of them never do, precisely because people like you would stop using them.

This is why anyone even slightly concerned about this should use offline, self-hosted, or self-built alternatives.



> Those services are honeypots by definition

A honeypot is a trap set to catch attackers. It does not include real data.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honeypot_(computing)

Seeing this misuse a lot lately!

These services are attractive targets, but they are not honeypots.

Some of them might also run honeypots separately from their core service, but that is not under discussion presently.


Yeah funny how someone comes with an authoritative tone about how 'these are honeypots' and they don't even know the meaning of the word

Says a lot about security discussions around


I'm aware of the definition. Whether the service is intentionally setup to attract attackers or not is irrelevant.

Way to ignore my point, and nitpick about semantics.


Why not say "it's a pot of gold", "it's a treasure for attackers" or something like that? Honeypots being a trap is the common definition, and it's confusing when used otherwise


> Whether the service is intentionally setup to attract attackers or not is irrelevant

No, this forms part of the definition.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: