3 ms·

can you paste one that you feel goes beyond minimum or even "impossible"? otherwise this comment is just he said she said.

s1k3s 4y ago
Yeah, literally the entire 2nd half of the article. Go read it, I'm not your tldr bot.
- DyslexicAtheist 4y ago
  I'm deeply familiar with the actual draft proposal of the law and no person working in security would consider these outrageous. this shit really is just best practice and good security hygiene. refusing to quote what you mean is bad faith. and you're not really contributing to the conversation
  - s1k3s 4y ago
    So you didn't read the article, you have no idea what you're talking about and you call me "being in bad faith". Is this Reddit now?
kneebonian 4y ago
> The CRA describes ’essential cybersecurity requirements’ which are well intended, and mostly ok, but leave a lot of room for interpretation. These requirements tell us to implement adequate denial of service & exploit mitigation techniques, for example, and no one can be certain what that means Service exploit mitigation techniques? Really why didn't I just think about not writing bugs, and vulnerable code.
- DyslexicAtheist 4y ago
  a shame that he is unfamiliar with RED. It's meaning is literally just system hardening as it is also defined in RED (CRA is just an expansion of RED to the rest of the ecosystem), which is in this contexts outgoing firewalls rules on devices, system hardening, anomaly detection, ... It is not a definitiv list of things because this would change based on what makes sense on a system. Instead you need to demonstrate that you've considered a threat model when applying the mitigation. And the mitigation is sufficient for the intended purpose. One example could be limit what the system can and can't do. And don't allow it to communicate with the whole world when your only required endpoints are api.samsung.com, an ntp server, DNS and MQTT. A shame that he had to write this hit-piece when he could have asked what notified bodies are testing _today_ to meetx requirements for RED.

s1k3s 4y ago

Yeah, literally the entire 2nd half of the article. Go read it, I'm not your tldr bot.

DyslexicAtheist 4y ago
I'm deeply familiar with the actual draft proposal of the law and no person working in security would consider these outrageous. this shit really is just best practice and good security hygiene. refusing to quote what you mean is bad faith. and you're not really contributing to the conversation
- s1k3s 4y ago
  So you didn't read the article, you have no idea what you're talking about and you call me "being in bad faith". Is this Reddit now?

kneebonian 4y ago

> The CRA describes ’essential cybersecurity requirements’ which are well intended, and mostly ok, but leave a lot of room for interpretation. These requirements tell us to implement adequate denial of service & exploit mitigation techniques, for example, and no one can be certain what that means Service exploit mitigation techniques? Really why didn't I just think about not writing bugs, and vulnerable code.

DyslexicAtheist 4y ago
a shame that he is unfamiliar with RED. It's meaning is literally just system hardening as it is also defined in RED (CRA is just an expansion of RED to the rest of the ecosystem), which is in this contexts outgoing firewalls rules on devices, system hardening, anomaly detection, ... It is not a definitiv list of things because this would change based on what makes sense on a system. Instead you need to demonstrate that you've considered a threat model when applying the mitigation. And the mitigation is sufficient for the intended purpose. One example could be limit what the system can and can't do. And don't allow it to communicate with the whole world when your only required endpoints are api.samsung.com, an ntp server, DNS and MQTT. A shame that he had to write this hit-piece when he could have asked what notified bodies are testing _today_ to meetx requirements for RED.