3 ms·

He sounds naive and his logic is quite the cliche. Surprised he didn't close it with a line from the hacker's manifesto. I'm not sure what it is with some peop

by pxlpshr 17y ago

He sounds naive and his logic is quite the cliche. Surprised he didn't close it with a line from the hacker's manifesto. I'm not sure what it is with some people acting like the smartest guy in the room while refusing to share their knowledge for the betterment of society. Entrepreneurs benefit tremendously from mentors and advice from those who've made it. I'd be surprised if he didn't learn a vast portion of his trade from the openness of information. I guess he feels empowered w/ his :15 minutes and this is how he leverages it? Weak^10. +++the pxlpshr+++

potatolicious 17y ago
I didn't get that sense from the article - he's not refusing to release the info for his own benefit, or to be a dick; he's ostensibly doing it because he feels like this just encourages the "we'll fix stuff when other people find it in the wild" mentality, which doesn't help make software more secure in the long run. He wants software producers to actively try to break their software so that his ostensibly simplistic tools can't find wide open holes like this. I'm sure some egotism rolls into it somewhere, but I don't think it's altogether a bad stance... you shouldn't be waiting for your users to tell you where your security holes are.
- pxlpshr 17y ago
  you shouldn't be waiting for your users to tell you where your security holes are. while I agree with that ideology, in reality you just can't assume that to be the case when you have multiple people touching the code, and features added regularly that may inadvertently introduce holes. what software has ever been 100% bullet proof? Also, I think that statement largely contradicts the notion of 'release early, iterate often' considering it's grounded on the notion of integrating feedback and bugs reported by users. Are major corporations held at a different standard simply because they have more resources? Even with thousands of employees, it's still a glass box compared to the millions that will use it.

by pxlpshr 17y ago

potatolicious 17y ago

I didn't get that sense from the article - he's not refusing to release the info for his own benefit, or to be a dick; he's ostensibly doing it because he feels like this just encourages the "we'll fix stuff when other people find it in the wild" mentality, which doesn't help make software more secure in the long run. He wants software producers to actively try to break their software so that his ostensibly simplistic tools can't find wide open holes like this. I'm sure some egotism rolls into it somewhere, but I don't think it's altogether a bad stance... you shouldn't be waiting for your users to tell you where your security holes are.

pxlpshr 17y ago
you shouldn't be waiting for your users to tell you where your security holes are. while I agree with that ideology, in reality you just can't assume that to be the case when you have multiple people touching the code, and features added regularly that may inadvertently introduce holes. what software has ever been 100% bullet proof? Also, I think that statement largely contradicts the notion of 'release early, iterate often' considering it's grounded on the notion of integrating feedback and bugs reported by users. Are major corporations held at a different standard simply because they have more resources? Even with thousands of employees, it's still a glass box compared to the millions that will use it.