4 ms·
A better investment would be to fix the holes in the first place. Or, better yet, spend that money to educate users and administrators alike on how to protect
by trafficlight 16y ago
A better investment would be to fix the holes in the first place.
Or, better yet, spend that money to educate users and administrators alike on how to protect themselves.
- daeken 16y ago1) How are they responsible for the holes? 2) How would this make them money?
- ShardPhoenix 16y agoI could easily see it becoming BigCo policy to only use hardware with Enterprise Security Robustness(tm), if only as an ass-covering move.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- alexgartrell 16y agoFixing security vulnerabilities in every piece of software ever written (or to be written) seems like a hell of a lot more work than hardening the processor. Non-executable memory, for example, eliminates a whole class of vulnerabilities in which illicitly added code is run from the stack or heap. To suggest that further work on the processor security model is a waste because people ought to have done it right the first time is blind to the fact that people will screw up no matter what.