4 ms·
> I am sorry, security guys, but unless it's military-grade software, security is just another feature. And it is not a highest priority one. I completely disa
by wtbob 10y ago
> I am sorry, security guys, but unless it's military-grade software, security is just another feature. And it is not a highest priority one.
I completely disagree: security is the foundation of any software system. Without security, the system simply cannot be trusted to do anything correctly, not even add 1 and 1 together. For far too long we've relied on our systems being accidentally correct rather than deliberately secure; we need to fix that.
If something's mathematically possible, then it will happen. We need to build systems where security flaws are impossible, because then … they won't happen.
- verbify 10y agoJust for the record: > So I personally consider security bugs to be just "normal bugs". I don't cover them up, but I also don't have any reason what-so-ever to think it's a good idea to track them and announce them as something special. Linus Torvalds - http://yarchive.net/comp/linux/security_bugs.html http://yarchive.net/comp/linux/security_bugs.html Here's a lengthier article about it - http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/business/2015/11/05/net-of-insecurity-the-kernel-of-the-argument/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/business/2015/11/05/net-of-...
- JoBrad 10y agoI'm not sure it's mathematically possible to reduce your attack surface to 0.
- Ygg2 10y agoSure it is. Just take your computer, put it in a furnace, turn it to ash and bury it couple of feet in the ground. Now its attack surface is 0.
- allendoerfer 10y agoYou would first have to verify the furnace and the "turn it to ash" process.
- bluejekyll 10y agoAnd the ash itself has to be perfectly random, otherwise someone could reverse the burn and reconstruct the computer.
- nimmer 10y agoSee "perfect solution fallacy"
- hyperpape 10y agoIt's not a fallacy if you're responding to someone who says "we absolutely must have a perfect solution"
- wtbob 10y agoFWIW, I'm not saying we must have a perfect solution: I'm saying that we have to build systems which make the implicit failings of their imperfect solutions explicit. As an example, it is impossible to build a system which gives one person access without permitting that person to lend that access to others: we need to acknowledge that rather than pretend it's untrue.
- cesarb 10y ago> Without security, the system simply cannot be trusted to do anything correctly, not even add 1 and 1 together. Not really. For a simple example, imagine a calculator software which has been mathematically proven to work correctly for any number with 30 or less digits, but which overflows a fixed-size buffer if the user inputs a number with more than 30 digits. That software could absolutely be trusted to add 1 and 1 together, while still having a security issue.