3 ms·
A security hole and backdoor is always a failure in a software product. Having someone else control your system is just about the worst you can get. It has noth
by brobdingnagians 8y ago
A security hole and backdoor is always a failure in a software product. Having someone else control your system is just about the worst you can get. It has nothing to do with relative definitions because it always degrades every other objective the project could or does have. If a model of leadership leads naturally and often to security holes, it is time to reconsider the model. If it is a common library, then it is even worse. Open source that is used widely is _even_ more important to protect because the impact can be so much greater.
- Aeolun 8y agoI don’t know, if I write open source software, the only definition of success I use is whether or not I had any fun writing it. Anything else is gravy.
- testvox 8y agoLots of projects, including windows and linux have had security holes that allow remote control of your system. Security flaw does not mean failure, its always about weighing the cost of security flaws against the utility the software provides. Even a completely compromised system can provide utility to many users.
- komali2 8y agoThis sounds like "if it's not perfect, it's a failure." I'm actually not aware of a single piece of software that didn't at some point have a production security vulnerability. Facebook failed. Google failed. Amazon failed.