>How anyone could see a smaller attack surface as a bad thing on HN baffles the mind.
Because in the real world, with real users, you must balance security and friction. If you have too much friction, users look for workarounds and your theoretical security increase becomes a real world security decrease.
For a real world example of this phenomenon, see forced arbitrary password changes (which are now universally discouraged). They are theoretically more secure, but study after study has proven that, in the real world, forced arbitrary password changes reduce organization-wide security.
Security requires a holistic approach. Users and their behaviors are part of that. Looking only at attack surface is a sure-fire way to make your users work against your security policies rather than with.
Because in the real world, with real users, you must balance security and friction. If you have too much friction, users look for workarounds and your theoretical security increase becomes a real world security decrease.
For a real world example of this phenomenon, see forced arbitrary password changes (which are now universally discouraged). They are theoretically more secure, but study after study has proven that, in the real world, forced arbitrary password changes reduce organization-wide security.
Security requires a holistic approach. Users and their behaviors are part of that. Looking only at attack surface is a sure-fire way to make your users work against your security policies rather than with.