3 ms·
Meh, I think the title of the article is misplaced. Developers don't need to care about threat models. Developers need to care about the attack surface their a
by ianamartin 6y ago
Meh, I think the title of the article is misplaced.
Developers don't need to care about threat models. Developers need to care about the attack surface their applications expose.
This article feels a lot more like it's directed at engineering managers than it does at individual developers.
It sort of pretends that there aren't best practices and that we all have to just invent shit from scratch every time we do anything. We don't have to do that.
If we all just considered OWASP top 10 and mitigated those, almost everything Fowler is suggesting here would be irrelevant.
Most people are going to get threat modeling wrong. Just follow the fucking rules. They aren't that hard. Just inconvenient if you are in a hurry.
- thrwyoilarticle 6y ago>Developers don't need to care about threat models. I disagree. A lot of time is spent worrying[1] about theoretical attacks that require non-invasive physical access. In reality, it's very unlikely you require, or are able to implement, a threat model where non-invasive physical access by bad actors is protected against. That requires hardware that doesn't expose what it's doing through power consumption, heat output, timing, unencrypted data, etc. That's not even the top level. There's a need for developers to follow best-practice about cryptography, etc., not for them to follow-best practice to prevent attacks that involve photographing bare silicon. [1] Particularly on online forums. A poster has heard that an attack is possible, therefore they accuse anyone who doesn't have a mitigation against it of being incompetent.