But in a world where the attacker can leak out a whole 16-bit integer, monitoring that 0.003% for two-port states may be irrelevant. Not saying you shall not, but you will miss 99.997%. Agree?
On 13 Dec 2021, at 15:22, Joe Greco wrote: > On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 01:49:07PM +0100, J??rg Kost wrote: >> I understand what you want to say, but I disagree in this point. When >> you have a cup full of water and someone remotely can drill holes into >> the out shell, just checking the bottom for leaks won't help. You may >> want a new mug instead. :-) The initial posting was about looking at the >> bottom only. > > Maybe I'm the only one who puts cheap wireless leak sensors near toilets, > drains, and other less-likely sources of water, in addition to the big > alarm system hardwired ones in all the usual places. > > Of course, then again, we also have two AC sump pumps and one that is > battery backup, all protected by generator and ATS. > > I prefer to know. You, of course, are free to disregard as you see > fit.
