3 ms·
> I know Hacker News leans very heavy toward the Silicon Valley side, but I swear stuff happens in the flyover states that involves computers. Yep, I live and
by kop316 6y ago
> I know Hacker News leans very heavy toward the Silicon Valley side, but I swear stuff happens in the flyover states that involves computers.
Yep, I live and work in one too! That's why I asked what it was. This is an edge case where I agree, it would add little utility. However, like you said, there are a lot of cases where there should be this sort of compliance but is not.
I actually thought you were referring to PLCs for public infrastructure or something similar to that. Sadly, I have gotten in arguments for people who do not want to even add encryption to talking to a PLC on the public internet.
- at_a_remove 6y agoThat's definitely a case where I would find some way to lock that down in at least two ways. PLCs seem to be in that "interesting/terrifying/lucrative" triangle to me, with the middle part being the kind of thing I would protect with layers of security. Overall, I have had to support some very odd security situations, back in the day. As an example: someone's philosophical position somehow got translated to an org-wide policy forbidding firewalls. I'll repeat that: they forbid firewalls. Because we were "open." And I had to support FTP sites. On Windows NT. I managed it without incident through layers of security and care, with watchfulness and compliance. PLCs? Yeah, I'd lock that down like crazy.