3 ms·
While I appreciate this distinction and is an interesting way to look at things, I don't think it's inevitable. I've never worked at Facebook, but I work for an
by jkingsbery 4y ago
While I appreciate this distinction and is an interesting way to look at things, I don't think it's inevitable. I've never worked at Facebook, but I work for another large tech company. Every project at our company, particularly the ones that deal with personal data, must produce a threat model [1] before going into production. In another thread, someone claims "Well that's because the question is meaningless," but from a threat modeling standpoint an engineer needs to understand all aspects of "where" data is for the system under design. Where physically is it stored? What database is it stored in? And knowing that, one must look at what threats are available. Who has access to the data? What other systems have access to the data? How are those users/systems authenticated? Is that access logged?
Now, sometimes systems diverge from the design, and sometimes threat models are incomplete. But the exercise of generating a threat model makes understanding who manages data more manageable.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threat_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threat_model
- lupire 4y ago> understand all aspects of "where" data is for the system under design. There easy! But also useless! The data is everywhere. That's why every "where" was created. Everything is a potential threat vector and needs to be protected by layers of fallible security.