Security through obscurity is based on the idea that if attackers don’t know how a system works or even if it exists, they’ll have a harder time breaching it. Despite repeatedly broken implementations and lacking support from standards bodies, this concept continues to be widely used. Secret doesn’t always mean safe – and it can even give a false sense of security. Effective cybersecurity should focus on robust, transparent security measures that can withstand scrutiny and attacks even when the attacker knows how the system works.

How does security through obscurity work? 

Examples include storing commonly sought-after files in unexpected locations, obfuscating source code, and relying on camouflage. While measures like these can complicate attacks, they have significant limitations. Once the obscurity technique is discovered, the control becomes ineffective. Security through obscurity can further create a false sense of security, neglecting other critical practices and leaving vulnerabilities unaddressed. 

But this concept is also under heavy influence by a form of availability bias. Security professionals often dismiss most obscurity techniques as ineffective, criticizing the ones they’ve cracked while ignoring those they haven’t discovered. The entire topic is surrounded by misconceptions. So, is security through obscurity solely an illusion with false hopes or is the notion of it being bad just a myth? What draws so many organizations to it? 

The appeal of hiding in secrecy

People often underestimate the likelihood of negative events affecting them. This leads many to believe that they are unlikely to be targeted, let alone have their secrets discovered among widespread data. In contrast, people tend to overestimate their ability to invent obscurity techniques, imagining them to be harder to break than they are. It’s partly because they’re rarely tested and often involve biased thinking. Both factors often drive each other, boosting a form of confidence without clarity – a recipe for disaster. 

Another factor is the fear of potential threats. It steers many to seek comfort in obscurity, believing what is unknown can go unnoticed. Time, cost, and effort also play a vital role. It’s often easier to hide information than to implement robust security controls. 

Then we have the potential of actual prevention and delay – especially against automation. Automated tools often struggle to interpret unusual or non-standard implementations that obscurity techniques use because of their reliance on predefined patterns. If the automated results are then used to point where manual testing should continue, the entire process is impacted. 

Prevention or invitation?

If the pros and cons are to be balanced, relying solely on security through obscurity wouldn’t be recommended. In most cases, complete prevention fails with determined manual testing, as it leverages human intuition, creativity, and contextual understanding. 

Many, however, won’t mind obscurity techniques existing alongside proper controls as an additional obstacle. Technically, this shouldn’t have any consequences and may even hinder attacks, but one often overlooked exception exists: our minds are wired to chase secrets. 

Hiding something can make people more curious about it. When you try to keep something secret, you’re also signaling that it might be valuable or interesting. This can make attackers more determined to find out what you’re hiding if they notice indications of it. It can even turn your attempt of prevention into an invitation. 

What role should obscurity play in your cybersecurity strategy?  

Security through obscurity can serve as an additional layer in a multi-layered security strategy. For example, obfuscating code can make it harder for attackers to understand and exploit a system, even if they have some knowledge of it. However, secrecy should not be the primary or sole method of securing systems.

Why you should exercise caution with secrecy

1. False sense of security: Relying heavily on obscurity can lead to a false sense of security, causing organizations to neglect more robust security measures. If you’re solely relying on keeping a system secret and it becomes compromised, there may be no other defenses in place. 

2. Lack of peer review: Secretive systems are also less likely to be scrutinized by the broader security community, which can lead to undiscovered vulnerabilities. Open and transparent security practices benefit from the collective expertise of many, leading to more robust and resilient systems. 

3. Insider threats: Insiders with knowledge of the system can exploit it more easily if the security relies on obscurity. Transparency in security practices can help mitigate this risk. 

4. Regulatory and compliance issues: Many industries have strict regulations and compliance requirements that mandate transparent and well-documented security practices. 

Find vulnerabilities before bad actors do 

Pen testing is an effective way to detect flaws in your application before they turn into a serious threat. But traditional pen testing delivery takes weeks to set up, and the results are point in time. This leaves critical application vulnerabilities exposed longer, while the average time for a threat actor to weaponize a new vulnerability gets shorter. 

Pen Testing as a Service (PTaaS) is one way to help, giving companies a view into to their vulnerability findings in real time via a dedicated portal. By switching to a PTaaS solution, such as Outpost24’s SWAT, you can achieve a deeper level of security monitoring and risk detection. Request a live demo today.