4 ms·
The article's argument is that users have no common sense and don't think about what they're doing, so we should reinforce this same behavior.
by peterwwillis 10y ago
The article's argument is that users have no common sense and don't think about what they're doing, so we should reinforce this same behavior.
- thfuran 10y agoNever trust the users.
- ajross 10y agoLots of these companies were storing data on behalf of other users who weren't necessarily aware of the level of "common sense" practiced by their suppliers. Whose behavior, exactly, are you trying to avoid "reinforcing" here? Is a world where no one trusts startups because they don't "think about what they're doing" one you really want to live in? Can I just say I'm horrified at the amount of glibertarian nutjobery in this thread? People are seriously arguing against the most obvious of security practices (seriously: don't open unauthenticated ports by default) because they appear to want the dummies (and their customers) to be punished. Welcome to Trump's world, I guess.
- acobster 10y ago> you may decide that not binding a database to local connections would be a reasonable default...But assumptions like that are dangerous because when not if someone does something that breaks that assumption, they’re now vulnerable to attacks—and they may not even know it. Understanding of the potential security risks presented by these defaults is not exactly mainstream knowledge. I wouldn't call this reinforcing behavior...I'd call it protecting your users. Common sense is something that comes with experience, and MongoDB is popular enough that it's likely to be in many web devs' first projects in production. Is it their fault they haven't developed this "common sense"? Yes and no. On the other hand, is vulnerable-by-default ever a good idea?