You&#x27;ve missed the reason for that opening statement.<p>tombrossman said &quot;...it must be noted that this isn&#x27;t a <i>guarantee of security</i>.&quot; [0] (emphasis mine). I used the pretty-much-worst-case attacker in the first sentence of my opening paragraph to support the second sentence in my opening paragraph, namely:<p>&gt; Security isn&#x27;t binary, it&#x27;s a gradient.<p>There is not a &quot;guarantee of security&quot;. There are only &quot;things that a given security strategy will protect against, and things that it won&#x27;t protect against&quot;. If you want to expand the set of things that a security strategy protects against, you always need to pay the costs mentioned in the third sentence in that paragraph.<p>Now, to address your comment:<p>I&#x27;m not sure what the &quot;this sort of thing&quot; to which you refer in your comment is. Would you be so kind as to clarify?<p>[0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=11673722" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=11673722</a>