3 ms·
I'm really surprised to see you're being downvoted for this statement. You don't even need to have anything valuable in your company for security to matter bec
by wccrawford 6y ago
I'm really surprised to see you're being downvoted for this statement.
You don't even need to have anything valuable in your company for security to matter because your customers' personal data is valuable to them, and by law you have to protect it in many places now.
A security breach must be publicized, and that's a black mark on your company whenever anyone is considering using it in the future. It doesn't even really matter how big that breach is, or what data was stolen.
But even worse, an unethical competitor might hack your data and erase it, leading to lengthy downtime or even permanently lost data.
That's most a server-side focus on security, but even client-side there could be things that allow hackers to mislead or damage your customers.
Libraries are updated constantly as old vulnerabilities are discovered and new methods of attack are invented. Leaving your OS or libraries un-updated is virtually guaranteeing that you end up vulnerable somehow.
The idea that if you don't know about a security problem, you don't need to fix it... Wow, it's just mind-boggling to me.
- majkinetor 6y agoWorld is a messy place, its far away from what they learn you at academia. Welcome.
- wccrawford 6y agoAttacks like that are not really acceptable on this site.
- Silhouette 6y agoI suspect the difference of opinion is because those two people are making very different assumptions. One comes across as too dismissive of security concerns, suggesting security is not their problem unless management is bothered. The other comes across as assuming most software is used in ways where security problems are a major risk. Neither is realistic. Combine that with an unnecessarily hostile tone and some ad hominem, and it's going to attract downvotes on a forum like HN where civil discussion and logical arguments are both usually appreciated.