4 ms·
A lot of comments are jumping to saying how extreme this is and arguing that this is a hit piece, but I think they’re missing the important point here: Microsof
by chickenpotpie 5y ago
A lot of comments are jumping to saying how extreme this is and arguing that this is a hit piece, but I think they’re missing the important point here: Microsoft is incentivized to create insecure software. When they’re allocating the budget, it’s gonna be a harder to convince your boss to invest in security when every dollar in security is a dollar you don’t make in sales for security solutions. Bad situations arise when there is a mismatch between customer needs and company incentives.
- ziddoap 5y agoProofpoint/Crowdstrike/etc. are, by the same logic, incentivized to fix only 90% of security issues they are aware of so that they can continue to have customers.
- greggsy 5y agoThat problem is not unique to Microsoft, or even the software and computing industry as a whole. I don’t believe ‘incentivised’ is the correct term either as it suggests and additional reward on top of the binary give and take between more or less software assurance in response to market demands. It’s just a business decision that everyone has to make. Even open source communities need to make a decision to expend time in one area or another.
- chickenpotpie 5y ago> That problem is not unique to Microsoft, or even the software and computing industry as a whole. Yes and it’s a very bad thing and it’s so bad that it’s frequently regulated to prevent it from happening. For example, in many regions of the US it is illegal for asbestos test companies to also be asbestos removal companies because they’re incentivized to lie.