3 ms·
There shouldn't be liability for bugs; there should be liability for negligence. If you ship network-aware code you are negligent if you don't take reasonable s
by all_blue_chucks 8y ago
There shouldn't be liability for bugs; there should be liability for negligence. If you ship network-aware code you are negligent if you don't take reasonable steps to prevent bugs and have a reasonable process to patch bugs.
- WalterBright 8y ago> There shouldn't be liability for bugs; there should be liability for negligence. All bugs can be argued as being the result of negligence.
- all_blue_chucks 8y agoMistakes are inevitable. Deciding to ship without any upgrade capability is a choice. A deliberate, negligent choice.
- WalterBright 8y agoOn the other hand, remote upgradability is how malware gets itself installed in the first place.
- all_blue_chucks 8y agoMost HTTP libraries verify certificates by default. That's all you really need to do...
- WalterBright 8y agoDoesn't look like that stopped the router malware from installing itself.
- all_blue_chucks 8y agoCitation that they have an auto-update that verifies certificates?
- WalterBright 8y agoI have no idea. But obviously that simple solution is not so simple: 1. it is not trivial to produce 2. there could be vulnerabilities in the crypto implementation (like that never happens!) 3. there could be buffer overflow attacks that let the malware bypass the crypto 4. The server itself could be compromised into sending a correct certificate encoded malware 5. How are you going to audit all that? A physical switch, on the other hand, is much easier to audit, and an attacker would need physical control of device to compromise it.