7 ms·

There's a limit to these things. Residential houses are not designed to withstand machine gun fires. Or a novel chemical, or even just an uncommon but nasty one

There's a limit to these things. Residential houses are not designed to withstand machine gun fires. Or a novel chemical, or even just an uncommon but nasty one.

ThrowawayR2 4y ago
> "Residential houses are not designed to withstand machine gun fires." If machine gun fire were a daily occurrence for residential houses, they would be. Every other common occurrence that occurs to residential houses, whether it's fire hazards, snow load on the roof, earthquake protection, etc. is part of the design consideration for residential houses. The fact that software _predictably_ gets attacked when placed online is exactly what means that developers can't shrug their shoulders and pretend it's an unforeseen event.
- tr_user 4y ago
  Except machine gun fire is consistent. Say you were to plan against guerilla warfare with various arms and various tactics that evolve each year because there's an arms marketplace. Could you? How often do the people who pay for the software plan for that in their budgeting? Supposed I were to say this software has been pentested before release and it'll cost this much extra. How many people are paying for that? How many people will pay for it to be pentested each year for new vulnerabilities?
  - jitl 4y ago
    This is more like missing doors/door locks than machine gun fire.
    - everforward 4y ago
      They're not missing doors and locks; the auth layer exists, but it's not without weakness. Most residential doors I've seen can't even stop someone with a credit card or metal shim, unless they have and actually use the deadbolt. The vast majority can be picked with ease if you have experience (and hackers typically do). You can also just check windows, since most people don't lock them. If you don't have to leave the door intact, there's a billion ways to get in. You can ram through the door, since they're not terribly thick. You can drill out the locks. You can saw through the hinges and/or the bolts. If you really don't care, any number of guns can remove the locks or hinges. An angle grinder will neatly handle any safe you're likely to find inside.
- dchftcs 4y ago
  When you're deploying something to the warzone, there are many unknown unknowns that affect the outcome. Things get predictably attacked and the defense can get unpredictably destroyed. Firearms and tactics evolve over time and very few things can really be blamed on the engineer. The rules for PE are also based on evidence of due diligence on known problems rather than absolute liability, because nobody knows everything that could happen, and can't cover all possible failures. You should read up on how tanks are destroyed or stopped in inventive ways in guerilla warfare, such as in the ongoing Ukraine conflict (it's not just failure of maintenance) or in Vietnam war. I also don't understand why you could selectively skip the part about novel chemicals.

There's a limit to these things. Residential houses are not designed to withstand machine gun fires. Or a novel chemical, or even just an uncommon but nasty one.

ThrowawayR2 4y ago

> "Residential houses are not designed to withstand machine gun fires." If machine gun fire were a daily occurrence for residential houses, they would be. Every other common occurrence that occurs to residential houses, whether it's fire hazards, snow load on the roof, earthquake protection, etc. is part of the design consideration for residential houses. The fact that software _predictably_ gets attacked when placed online is exactly what means that developers can't shrug their shoulders and pretend it's an unforeseen event.

tr_user 4y ago
Except machine gun fire is consistent. Say you were to plan against guerilla warfare with various arms and various tactics that evolve each year because there's an arms marketplace. Could you? How often do the people who pay for the software plan for that in their budgeting? Supposed I were to say this software has been pentested before release and it'll cost this much extra. How many people are paying for that? How many people will pay for it to be pentested each year for new vulnerabilities?
- jitl 4y ago
  This is more like missing doors/door locks than machine gun fire.
  - everforward 4y ago
    They're not missing doors and locks; the auth layer exists, but it's not without weakness. Most residential doors I've seen can't even stop someone with a credit card or metal shim, unless they have and actually use the deadbolt. The vast majority can be picked with ease if you have experience (and hackers typically do). You can also just check windows, since most people don't lock them. If you don't have to leave the door intact, there's a billion ways to get in. You can ram through the door, since they're not terribly thick. You can drill out the locks. You can saw through the hinges and/or the bolts. If you really don't care, any number of guns can remove the locks or hinges. An angle grinder will neatly handle any safe you're likely to find inside.
dchftcs 4y ago
When you're deploying something to the warzone, there are many unknown unknowns that affect the outcome. Things get predictably attacked and the defense can get unpredictably destroyed. Firearms and tactics evolve over time and very few things can really be blamed on the engineer. The rules for PE are also based on evidence of due diligence on known problems rather than absolute liability, because nobody knows everything that could happen, and can't cover all possible failures. You should read up on how tanks are destroyed or stopped in inventive ways in guerilla warfare, such as in the ongoing Ukraine conflict (it's not just failure of maintenance) or in Vietnam war. I also don't understand why you could selectively skip the part about novel chemicals.