Is there a term for when you say something knowingly broad but ALSO understand there are specific cases where it doesn't apply? Like a simple term I can paste onto the end of statements like (sic) or similar so that I can avoid the nitpickers?

EDIT: honestly not being facetious just curious because this exact thing happens constantly.

That's how models and rule work in general. There's a rule or pattern that mostly applies but always exceptions.

In this case, the old systems were all torn apart by older hackers. There's young ones, just a few, hacking mainframes and stuff now. The ease of finding first flaws showed only reason they weren't found sooner is nobody cared enough to look. Or couldn't afford the relics to play with. So, believing one is safe just because computers are old is akin to Security via Senority.

Now, there are older approaches like tagged HW or dedicated lines whose intrinsic properties reduce odds of attacks. Definitely apply any good techniques from past to present situation. Just that it's old... especially since it's older than INFOSEC itself... doesnt make it safer.

The rebuttal was pertinent and polite, and (almost) provided a reference, so I really don't think it can be qualified as nitpicking. Your statement was a bit exaggerated for effect, so you can hardly criticize someone who responds to it, for effect.

I suggest you avoid the knowingly broad and include nuance to your arguments. I like the suggestion of adding "generally".

That's an interesting question. I can't think of one off the top of my head. You should try http://english.stackexchange.com/

Questions like this are pretty common there.

As an added bonus, Peter Shor (famous for Shor's algorithm) just might answer your question.

"(generally)" ?

But you're right, it's sad how many people insist on feeling smart by taking a general statement as a universal statement and nitpicking it. It's so tiring.

an exaggeration?

I remember a story of someone that was decommissioning an HP-UX box at a university after years of service doing... not much it seems. While shutting it down they noticed that the system had been compromised and an investigation began. It turns out the intruder had exploited a remote vulnerability, logged in as a regular user, and had tried to compile a rootkit. After days of attempts to compile the software, the intruder seemed to have found a way to patch the remote vulnerability, and logged out to never return.

This is the same thing as security through obscurity or security through lack of usability IMO.

That is pretty funny because decades ago we used to remotely compromise university HP 9000 systems, create new privileged accounts, and apply the latest patch sets to the system to close up any security issues. I would assume that is a pretty common practice, you don't want someone else messing with your system. I would bet the investigation didn't go far enough.

That's great. I'm going to have to remember that phrase. Another I considered is Security through Obsolesence. Makes it sound more retarded. ;)

Security through unplanned obsolescence.