2 ms·
...it's not a great analogy because we have a very limited things that can go wrong with a bridge. Security engineering is still evolving. But it seems reason
by joe_the_user 6y ago
...it's not a great analogy because we have a very limited things that can go wrong with a bridge.
Security engineering is still evolving.
But it seems reasonable to say that if you engineer a thing that may be subjected to unlimited, unknown stress, you engineered it wrong.
These many large companies giving themselves a single point of failure by installing SolarWinds binary, not knowing the contents of home-phoning and so-forth is a terrible security engineering solution. Sure, maybe they "couldn't have done better under the circumstance" but someone allowed the circumstances to happen too.
- viraptor 6y ago> But it seems reasonable to say that if you engineer a thing that may be subjected to unlimited, unknown stress, you engineered it wrong. A computer is that by design. Anyone using computers is using a system subjected to unknown and unlimited inputs, especially when connected to the internet. (But it can be exposed via employees if it isn't) Any controls we have at the moment are "this will not happen (under the assumptions we're currently aware of)". If those companies didn't run this monitoring solution, they would use a different one. Unless the system is perfectly covered with access policies (none are), the monitoring solution is a global access to enterprises. You can mitigate the impact, shard things, etc. but there are still many cross-cutting concerns which will (suddenly?) turn out to be a single point of failure.
- Pokepokalypse 6y agoThe problem is that Security Engineering is still treated as if it's a separate thing that is evolving. It's systems engineering, where security is a necessary feature that's being grafted-on after-the-fact.