In a world where we use our devices for online banking, private conversations, server management, and our creative work, it’s comforting to believe that we’re “secure.” After all, we turn on FileVault, use password managers, enable two-factor authentication, and install privacy-focused software. Some of us even switch to Linux or GrapheneOS, convinced we’ve left the dangers behind.
But let’s take a step back and ask something very few seem willing to say out loud:
Do you really know who wrote the software running on your machine?
Do you know their name? Their history? Their motives? Their qualifications?
Do you know who verified the latest update you installed?
Probably not. And here’s the uncomfortable truth:
“Security” Is Mostly a Story We Tell Ourselves
The modern digital trust model is built not on absolute verification, but on assumptions:
- That the developer is honest.
- That their development environment wasn’t compromised.
- That the binaries we downloaded match the source code they published.
- That no one slipped in a backdoor between compile and release.
These are not facts. They’re trust decisions, and most of the time, they’re made blindly.
The Problem with “Security Experts” on YouTube
Spend five minutes on tech YouTube and you’ll find people confidently explaining how to “lock down” your system:
- “Use this Linux distro for maximum privacy.”
- “Install these five tools and you’re secure.”
- “Don’t use that OS, it’s spyware!”
And yet, very few of these influencers, even the ones who mean well, ask the most fundamental questions:
- Who built the software they’re recommending?
- How was it compiled and delivered?
- Who controls the update infrastructure?
- What if the developer themselves is the weak link?
Too often, their understanding of “security” begins and ends with personal settings: disk encryption, VPNs, firewalls, and blocking JavaScript. Important? Sure. But it’s security theater if you’re trusting a 400MB closed-source app you just downloaded from GitHub and calling it “secure” because the website looked clean and the author sounded smart.
The Chain of Trust Has More Weak Links Than Strong Ones
Here’s the hard reality:
- Open-source doesn’t mean reviewed.
- Signed binaries don’t mean safe binaries.
- Verified downloads don’t mean the code wasn’t compromised upstream.
- Long resumes on a website don’t mean the author knows what they’re doing or is even who they say they are.
The software you trust most could’ve been hacked together by a pseudonymous developer with a great-looking landing page and a fake bio.
And once it’s in your system, it’s part of your life.
The Supply Chain Is the Real Battlefield
The most dangerous attacks now happen before the software even reaches you:
- The XZ Utils backdoor (2024) was inserted into a widely-used compression library by a trusted maintainer after years of clean contributions.
- The SolarWinds hack compromised the build pipeline of a trusted enterprise vendor. Signed updates were malicious.
- Thousands of npm packages have been hijacked via typosquatting or credential theft.
In each case, the victims installed signed, verified, “legit” software, and still got compromised.
So What Do We Do?
We don’t give up, but we stop pretending.
We stop confusing confidence with security.
We accept that real security is:
- About reducing risk, not eliminating it.
- About understanding what you’re trusting, and why.
- About acknowledging the limits of your visibility.
- About choosing software with long-term, transparent development, reproducible builds, and independent reviews. Not just sleek marketing and GitHub stars.
We also stop worshipping self-declared experts who can’t see past their own settings screen.
Final Thought: Trust Is an Assumption, Not a Guarantee
There’s a bitter-sweet truth at the core of all this:
Every update that works, every system that boots without drama, every app that respects your data, is a small miracle.
We are always trusting someone, unfortunately, we don’t know who.
Recognizing this uncomfortable truth is the first step toward making smarter, more cautious choices. Because in the end, security isn’t a guarantee, it’s a fragile assumption we all share, day by day.