4 ms·

> There are zero operating systems that can stand for a year without patching in the face of contact with the internet. Similarly, there are also zero building

> There are zero operating systems that can stand for a year without patching in the face of contact with the internet. Similarly, there are also zero buildings, bridges, aircraft, etc. that can realistically withstand attacks of humans despite being built by engineers who have taken on the liability. A sufficiently powerful bomb will win every time. It seems a bit strange to want to hold software to a higher standard here.

mikewarot 4y ago
>A sufficiently powerful bomb will win every time. It seems a bit strange to want to hold software to a higher standard here. A brick fortification built in the 1800s will always offer some defense from small arms fire. You can't cause that fort to attack all other nearby forts. The side effects of the fort are locally limited. A computer that allows unauthorized infiltration of command (not just denial of service) can be used as an offensive weapon by anyone (or any bot) anywhere. [Edit]It's like building your fort out of crates of explosives, instead of bricks.[/Edit] The side effects of a computer are not locally limited. I think it is only rational to require a standard appropriate with such a radically different set of side-effects.
- randomdata 4y ago
  > You can't cause that fort to attack all other nearby forts. Why not? Clever blast planning could send the shrapnel from one fort into another, seeing one fort carry out an attack on other forts. What motivated people can come up with is a complete unknown, and therefore incongruent with engineering, which requires a set of known and predictable states.
bee_rider 4y ago
I think this shows one of the weaknesses of the building analogy. Buildings might stand up to basic civilian attacks usually, but probably most aren't built to stay up in the face of the sort of things that a professional military can bring along -- artillery, etc. In software, where things can be copied essentially for free, there's no need to have a military industrial complex to mass produce artillery if you want to go around blowing things up. Tools from intelligence agencies leak, and then can be copied infinitely, eventually trickling down to script kiddies. There's a blurry line between intelligence services and criminal organizations in some countries. There's a blurry line between military spying and corporate espionage in others. A world where some teenager could buy nearly-current tanks from a guy their weed dealer knew would not have many tall buildings, I think.

mikewarot 4y ago

>A sufficiently powerful bomb will win every time. It seems a bit strange to want to hold software to a higher standard here. A brick fortification built in the 1800s will always offer some defense from small arms fire. You can't cause that fort to attack all other nearby forts. The side effects of the fort are locally limited. A computer that allows unauthorized infiltration of command (not just denial of service) can be used as an offensive weapon by anyone (or any bot) anywhere. [Edit]It's like building your fort out of crates of explosives, instead of bricks.[/Edit] The side effects of a computer are not locally limited. I think it is only rational to require a standard appropriate with such a radically different set of side-effects.

randomdata 4y ago
> You can't cause that fort to attack all other nearby forts. Why not? Clever blast planning could send the shrapnel from one fort into another, seeing one fort carry out an attack on other forts. What motivated people can come up with is a complete unknown, and therefore incongruent with engineering, which requires a set of known and predictable states.

bee_rider 4y ago

I think this shows one of the weaknesses of the building analogy. Buildings might stand up to basic civilian attacks usually, but probably most aren't built to stay up in the face of the sort of things that a professional military can bring along -- artillery, etc. In software, where things can be copied essentially for free, there's no need to have a military industrial complex to mass produce artillery if you want to go around blowing things up. Tools from intelligence agencies leak, and then can be copied infinitely, eventually trickling down to script kiddies. There's a blurry line between intelligence services and criminal organizations in some countries. There's a blurry line between military spying and corporate espionage in others. A world where some teenager could buy nearly-current tanks from a guy their weed dealer knew would not have many tall buildings, I think.