The most successful attacks are the ones that go unnoticed and do not alert the system as a whole, or convince the system that they do not exist. Invisible parasites, subtle entrances, etc.
An exploit that straightforwardly pillages an ecosystem (as long as it's not utterly destroyed) will immediately produce anti-bodies/defenses against the attack. It will alert other systems that are vulnerable to the attack.
An exploit that slips between the cracks unnoticed and siphons energy or resources or mindshare is infinitely more effective.
a) Hostility includes host...what if host (inception towards death) implies hostility towards guests (life)?
b) ATTACK = ATTACH...does nature detaches those within from one another?
Success implies outcome...attack (inception towards death) implies origin for defense (life).
...implies VERSUS least aka a conflict tempting one to join the attack.
What if energy implies source and oneself implies re-source aka response within source? Could the suggestions by others tempt one to ignore perceivable source, while siphoning ones consentual energy?
What if cause (whole) and effect (one) cannot be more than one aka energy?
a) System aka syn (together) sta (to stand) implies as partials within whole...not as a whole.
b) A whole implies as opposed to another whole...there can only be one whole for each one partial within.
c) What if few suggest "a whole" to tempt many to consent to "A HOLE"...would many even notice what consent was given to?