> Don't do anything secret on the computer
i think that might be unavoidable.
> Assume every system on Earth is breached
you probably say this jokingly, but this is not a bad take. or rather, "assume every system on earth can/will be breached". that is a good motivation to improve the security for your system, if you have the resources to.
:o)
This.
I've spent years working in network security and one of the core principles is "if a thing can be accessed legitimately, it can be accessed illegitimately". Perfect security is an unachievable ideal. What you can affect, though, is how much time and effort it will take to breach you. What you're practically shooting for is to make the cost higher than the value an attacker would get from breaching you.
"This."
NO!
> or rather, "assume every system on earth can/will be breached"
NOOOO! NO NO NO!! It's ALREADY BREACHED! You are using ADVERSARIAL CHANNELS! If we're talking about objectives and proofs for the purposes of operational security, the only way of going about this is to act as though every system you are using has chips in it the NSA put there. Please understand.
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/security/zero-trust/adopt/...
oh, sorry for misunderstanding then.
> NOOOO! NO NO NO!! It's ALREADY BREACHED!
i see and hear your point. it just makes me sad to think about security in this way, even though i think it would be good for someone that operates in the cyber security sphere. i think a more healthy way of approaching this for the general person, is what the person above said: "[...] what you're practically shooting for is to make the cost higher than the value an attacker would get from breaching you.", or for you not to lose more money/resources/value/whatever by securing your system, than you would do by getting breached or attacked. but that is just my opinion, and i am not an expert, so!
:o)