5 ms·

But there is a big difference between airline safety and software safety. An airliner survives against the environment, it's PvE, a software system has to survi

But there is a big difference between airline safety and software safety. An airliner survives against the environment, it's PvE, a software system has to survive against hackers, it's PvP. If you shoot a rocket at an airliner, the airliner will fail, in that case we blame the person who shot the rocket.

jjk166 5y ago
We design military aircraft to fly into warzones. They are very much PvP. We design them with various countermeasures to deal with rockets and ejector seats if those fail. Yeah, planes will be shot down and pilots may die despite these precautions, but skimping on the ejector seat because "hey they might die anyways" is totally unacceptable.
boc 5y ago
This is a great way to frame the issue.
WalterBright 5y ago
> But there is a big difference between airline safety and software safety I've worked professionally in both industries; they are not fundamentally different. Software practices can learn a lot from aviation practice, but they seem determined to spend decades rediscovering the methods the bitter, expensive way. For example, software is still stuck in the dark ages where the idea is better training / better programmers / more punishment will prevent these sorts of failures.
- krisoft 5y ago
  > For example, software is still stuck in the dark ages where the idea is better training / better programmers / more punishment will prevent these sorts of failures. What is your source on this? This goes against what anyone at any company where I have worked at ever believed. No-fault root cause analysis, process improvements, inherently safer practices, languages, libraries is what every place aimed for. I don’t even know what you might mean by punishment?
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    > What is your source on this? See "Trust the programmer" https://beza1e1.tuxen.de/articles/spirit_of_c.html https://beza1e1.tuxen.de/articles/spirit_of_c.html Also, a general belief among C++ programmers that better training is the answer to programming bugs. This belief is slowly fading, but it's got a long way to go. Scott Meyers' books on Effective C++ represent a lot of effort to educate programmers out of making mistakes. For example, from the table of contents: "Prefer consts, enums, and inlines to #defines". If C++ was an airplane, #define would simply be removed. > I don’t even know what you might mean by punishment? There are several calls for punishment in the comments on the article.
    - buran77 5y ago
      I think the work of the people operating a system is just as important as the one of the programmer. You can build the very solid plane or software and then have it fail due to being operated in the wrong fashion. The question is whether both sides are doing their best, within reason, to mitigate issues. The programmer doing everything right while the admins forget to patch for years won't change a thing. The opposite is true, patching or configuring correctly won't do a thing if the system is full of "built-in" holes. It's not a stretch to think of a setup where specific conditions that define this "within reason" are established for software developers and administrators. It's what an audit should normally uncover: weaknesses in the process, points for improvement, etc. Only this time it would be in the form of general and specific guidelines that get progressively stronger as time passes. It's not a sure thing but it raises the bar enough for most ransomware attacks to become cost prohibitive for the attacker.
    - grawprog 5y ago
      >If C++ was an airplane, #define would simply be removed. So would that make D the airplane version of C++?
      - WalterBright 5y ago
        In my paper "The Origins of the D Programming Language" I enumerate many direct influences aircraft design has had on D. https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3386323#:~:text=The%20D%20programming%20language%20began,languages%20into%20a%20new%20one.&text=The%20language%20design%20was%20begun,version%201.0%20in%20January%202007 https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3386323#:~:text=The%20D%2.... BTW, I practice dual path in my personal life. If I'm doing something risky, I have a backup. For example, when I work under my car, I put the car on two sets of jackstands, even though I use stands that are rated for trucks. I'd never rely on a single rope/piton if rock climbing. I cringe when I see climbers doing that. I carry an extra coat in the car in winter, and water when driving in the desert.
- mcguire 5y ago
  That would seem to require the software industry to take responsibility. The software industry is to responsibility roughly as surgeons are to checklists.
gilbetron 5y ago
Not only that, but we spend billions of dollars on defense to protect those airlines from bad actors. I mean when a person blows up a bomb in an airplane, our response isn't "build bomb-proof airplanes".
- echelon 5y ago
  You're correct. Historically the choices were made to spend billions (and trillions) of dollars to invade countries harboring terrorists and use the situation to project power against other adversaries, advantageously control the price of oil, work trade deals, etc. I predict the same path will be taken with cybercrime. The U.S. defense apparatus won't be giving subsidies to non-tech companies to boost security. Rather, they'll be waging war and using overlapping objectives and narratives to further other goals.
  - gilbetron 5y ago
    Cyberwarfare will be used to further terrible agendas (and already is) - that must be fought politically, but I am plenty jaded enough to see where that is likely to go. Unfortunately not participating in Cyberwarfare is not an option.
  - bluGill 5y ago
    I disagree - Russia seems to be a large source of these crimes and they are a bit too big to invade (without nuclear bombs it might be possible, but only a fool would invade given they have them) We might seem some special forces go into action under cover. However it would be assassinations done in such a way that Russia either won't know who did them, or is willing to look the other way (the later implies something diplomatic).
  - MomoXenosaga 5y ago
    If sheltering hackers means war countries might think twice of letting them operate from within their borders. But there are other options: assassination for instance like Israel does with nuclear scientists.
- WalterBright 5y ago

jjk166 5y ago

We design military aircraft to fly into warzones. They are very much PvP. We design them with various countermeasures to deal with rockets and ejector seats if those fail. Yeah, planes will be shot down and pilots may die despite these precautions, but skimping on the ejector seat because "hey they might die anyways" is totally unacceptable.

boc 5y ago

This is a great way to frame the issue.

WalterBright 5y ago

> But there is a big difference between airline safety and software safety I've worked professionally in both industries; they are not fundamentally different. Software practices can learn a lot from aviation practice, but they seem determined to spend decades rediscovering the methods the bitter, expensive way. For example, software is still stuck in the dark ages where the idea is better training / better programmers / more punishment will prevent these sorts of failures.

krisoft 5y ago
> For example, software is still stuck in the dark ages where the idea is better training / better programmers / more punishment will prevent these sorts of failures. What is your source on this? This goes against what anyone at any company where I have worked at ever believed. No-fault root cause analysis, process improvements, inherently safer practices, languages, libraries is what every place aimed for. I don’t even know what you might mean by punishment?
- WalterBright 5y ago
  > What is your source on this? See "Trust the programmer" https://beza1e1.tuxen.de/articles/spirit_of_c.html https://beza1e1.tuxen.de/articles/spirit_of_c.html Also, a general belief among C++ programmers that better training is the answer to programming bugs. This belief is slowly fading, but it's got a long way to go. Scott Meyers' books on Effective C++ represent a lot of effort to educate programmers out of making mistakes. For example, from the table of contents: "Prefer consts, enums, and inlines to #defines". If C++ was an airplane, #define would simply be removed. > I don’t even know what you might mean by punishment? There are several calls for punishment in the comments on the article.
  - buran77 5y ago
    I think the work of the people operating a system is just as important as the one of the programmer. You can build the very solid plane or software and then have it fail due to being operated in the wrong fashion. The question is whether both sides are doing their best, within reason, to mitigate issues. The programmer doing everything right while the admins forget to patch for years won't change a thing. The opposite is true, patching or configuring correctly won't do a thing if the system is full of "built-in" holes. It's not a stretch to think of a setup where specific conditions that define this "within reason" are established for software developers and administrators. It's what an audit should normally uncover: weaknesses in the process, points for improvement, etc. Only this time it would be in the form of general and specific guidelines that get progressively stronger as time passes. It's not a sure thing but it raises the bar enough for most ransomware attacks to become cost prohibitive for the attacker.
  - grawprog 5y ago
    >If C++ was an airplane, #define would simply be removed. So would that make D the airplane version of C++?
    - WalterBright 5y ago
      In my paper "The Origins of the D Programming Language" I enumerate many direct influences aircraft design has had on D. https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3386323#:~:text=The%20D%20programming%20language%20began,languages%20into%20a%20new%20one.&text=The%20language%20design%20was%20begun,version%201.0%20in%20January%202007 https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3386323#:~:text=The%20D%2.... BTW, I practice dual path in my personal life. If I'm doing something risky, I have a backup. For example, when I work under my car, I put the car on two sets of jackstands, even though I use stands that are rated for trucks. I'd never rely on a single rope/piton if rock climbing. I cringe when I see climbers doing that. I carry an extra coat in the car in winter, and water when driving in the desert.
mcguire 5y ago
That would seem to require the software industry to take responsibility. The software industry is to responsibility roughly as surgeons are to checklists.

gilbetron 5y ago

Not only that, but we spend billions of dollars on defense to protect those airlines from bad actors. I mean when a person blows up a bomb in an airplane, our response isn't "build bomb-proof airplanes".

echelon 5y ago
You're correct. Historically the choices were made to spend billions (and trillions) of dollars to invade countries harboring terrorists and use the situation to project power against other adversaries, advantageously control the price of oil, work trade deals, etc. I predict the same path will be taken with cybercrime. The U.S. defense apparatus won't be giving subsidies to non-tech companies to boost security. Rather, they'll be waging war and using overlapping objectives and narratives to further other goals.
- gilbetron 5y ago
  Cyberwarfare will be used to further terrible agendas (and already is) - that must be fought politically, but I am plenty jaded enough to see where that is likely to go. Unfortunately not participating in Cyberwarfare is not an option.
- bluGill 5y ago
  I disagree - Russia seems to be a large source of these crimes and they are a bit too big to invade (without nuclear bombs it might be possible, but only a fool would invade given they have them) We might seem some special forces go into action under cover. However it would be assassinations done in such a way that Russia either won't know who did them, or is willing to look the other way (the later implies something diplomatic).
- MomoXenosaga 5y ago
  If sheltering hackers means war countries might think twice of letting them operate from within their borders. But there are other options: assassination for instance like Israel does with nuclear scientists.
WalterBright 5y ago