3 ms·
This would be a nice improvement, but as others point out, more flaws will exist and be exploited. Really this is about incentives: manufactures and users have
by adrianratnapala 10y ago
This would be a nice improvement, but as others point out, more flaws will exist and be exploited.
Really this is about incentives: manufactures and users have little incentive to worry about security if the losers are third-party the targets of a DDOS.
Things will only improve when there is liability: either the manufacturers or the users get fined when their stuff becomes an attack vector. Fining users will probably never be politically possible, but I suspect it would be the better option.
- oneeyedpigeon 10y agoWhy do you think fining users would be the better option?
- adrianratnapala 10y agoI think fining manufactures would lead to scenarios where we fight the last war, much like how the 2008 financial crisis was not prevented by the existing nest of regulations which were passed to prevent the previous crises. That is fining manufacturers would lead to strict and expensive regulations saying just how things must be done, but which are laughed at by baddies developing new exploits that work within these particular rules. On the other hand, if the rule is "if your box does bad stuff, then you must pay" -- then consumers will look to security as part of the good reputation of the vendor. That extra layer of indirection is what I look for to avoid "last war" type scenarios.