3 ms·
That's not how reliable, safe, secure engineering works. You don't consider stuff safe until someone proves that it will kill you/let people steal your data/wha
by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
That's not how reliable, safe, secure engineering works. You don't consider stuff safe until someone proves that it will kill you/let people steal your data/whatever, but rather everything is suspect unless it can be demonstrated that according to current state of the art/best practices, it can reasonably be expected to be safe.
A bridge isn't considered safe until it collapses, it is considered unsafe until it has been shown that according to our current understanding of physics and material properties, it can be expected to hold up.
The same should obviously apply to software and computing hardware.
- ngneer 9y agoThat implication was not intended. I was merely attempting to address the FUD. If anything, I took care to mention that all systems are vulnerable and must be assumed as such.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y agoBut the point is that it's not FUD if doubt is the correct default position, the situation is in fact uncertain, there is no reasonable way for you to resolve the uncertainty, and fear is justified in the face of that uncertainty. FUD is when you deliberately avoid getting an accurate picture of the uncertainty/danger so as to paint as bleak a picture as possible and thus induce gratuitous fear.