5 ms·
If an employee did this without authorization, the company should still be liable because I do not think safety regulations exempt manufacture from responsibili
by figassis 3y ago
If an employee did this without authorization, the company should still be liable because I do not think safety regulations exempt manufacture from responsibility of employee actions. I believe the opposite is true, that they must ensure safety despite rogue employees, with reviews, audits and such.
- bluGill 3y agoThey need to show audits and that the code is obscure enough that it could be missed. I've seen IOCCC type things that do things I wouldn't catch in a code review. (IIRC there is a malicious code contest where the goal is to put backdoors in that others don't see in review, but I can't recall what it is)
- 8372049 3y agoThere's been a decent amount of those in the wild, too. If you're in an environment without unicode auditing you can do all sorts of crazy things without IOCCC levels of code tricks too.
- nneonneo 3y agoYou’re thinking of the Underhanded C contest: http://www.underhanded-c.org/ http://www.underhanded-c.org/. The goal is to write C code which looks completely innocent, but which actually performs some malicious or unwanted behaviour. In the last year they ran the contest (2016), the goal was to write a program that would compare two sets of measurements for similarity (nominally radiation emission spectra) but fail to give a correct answer when given a particular crafted input.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]