To take the strongest form of the author’s argument, his point is that it’s not possible to take a pile of terrible code with no security, and fix all the probl

To take the strongest form of the author’s argument, his point is that it’s not possible to take a pile of terrible code with no security, and fix all the problems in it. It’s better to architect it in a way that provides security (e.g least privilege everywhere, sandbox, memory safe languages, etc.). I think the author could have phrased it better, in that the best approach is having a good security design, and then taking out all the bugs it couldn’t cover.