3 ms·
> In other words, "lock the users up so they can't hurt themselves"? No, it means that supposedly "dumb" actions by users like inserting a USB stick or opening
by antientropic 9y ago
> In other words, "lock the users up so they can't hurt themselves"?
No, it means that supposedly "dumb" actions by users like inserting a USB stick or opening a Word attachment shouldn't break the security of the system. (In fact, they're only "dumb" actions because our systems are designed without security in mind.) That's hardly authoritarian.
- narag 9y agoActually it seems exactly the opposite. Considering the users "fixable" is authoritarian, adapting to their behaviour is not.
- WillReplyfFood 9y agoHow would you sandbox such dumb "actions"? Draw a copy of everything afflicted by the actions of the thumbdrive- and kick the container, once it touches the system in a bad spot? We are talking about tradeoffs- and the truth is, we traded security for development speed and low price, because security has a tendency to arrive very, very late in the game, the moment people want to abandon the system or concept.
- Doxin 9y agoThere is exactly no reason whatsoever for executing code from an usb stick the user has just inserted.