Well there is no such thing as less than nothing so…
Also this is the kind of comment one would have expected to receive on a forum for the Anom phone had they brought up honeypot potential. I made no accusations. I said to at most consider the possibility.
Also I did provide some evidence, the interpretation is left to the users.
It seems pretty obvious that a reasonably secure operating system with a security strategy of having vms with extremely poor security based on take our word for it they can not get past the VM to dom0 does not inspire much confidence.
Pattern recognition and an advanced ability to spot contradictions is a symptom of Autism in case you didnt know and that makes no rational sense.
I can think of several other explanations though that I would believe more than qubes being a honey pot. If I had to bet on it I would be the Devs did not want to create the kiddy diddlers OS of choice so qubes is probably not out of the box a fortress so that clueless perverts can not use it to get away with heinous crimes out of the box. Its just a guess but it is another explanation that fits with what I know already.
Another point of evidence is that one would expect a reasonably secure OS to want to provide a somewhat secure default because just letting random hackers into even an untrusted qube provides opportunities for them to stumble upon ways to get into dom0.
Sure you cant stop people from setting up a qubes machine and trying to hack it but you can stop random people from stumbling in the front door and lucking their way into a vulnerability.
I am sorry if I sound like I am casting shade but I can not help but think of every possible way I can imagine situations playing out and then noticing when reality and what I have been told do not jive.
Like I said I am probably wrong and when I said idiot I was referring to the actual origin of the word as in a citizen and not a government official. But I cant help but see many conflicting paradoxes in the way qubes is presented.
I like to look on the bright side so I will continue to stick to my assumption that the inconsistencies are due to the Devs not wanting to aid and abet kiddy diddlers.
But I am just following qubes advice and not trusting the infrastructure.
That in and of its self is rather suspicious. If you know anything about con artists they often start out by heavily warning you to not be con’d. It takes advantage of human nature, people will rarly suspect someone of doing something they warn you about. Liar will talk about hating liars, cheaters hate cheaters ect ect. its like con man 101 stuff. proof of nothing but food for thought is all and security begins but thinking about our actions does it not?