4 ms·

This bridge is under 24/7 hacker attacks from all parts of the world. Some of them try to unscrew bolts, some dig around the foundation, some remove a brick or

This bridge is under 24/7 hacker attacks from all parts of the world. Some of them try to unscrew bolts, some dig around the foundation, some remove a brick or two here or there or cut suspension cables. In absence of these hackers bridge could be used without any modifications for any number of pink or orange vehicles. It supports any kind of traffic requested in specification. So it's not really a problem with any kind of regular use, it's a problem with huge number of adversaries who try to find a weak point and then actively exploit it. Flawled analogy aside, is there an example of an OS which is actively used on open internet and doesn't require security patches or bug fixes? Or any other significantly complex software? Why should we expect from Microsoft what was not achieved anywhere else in our industry? It could be that software development is more complex and more error prone than bridge building after all.

neilv 2y ago
The analogy intentionally focused on the negligent engineering flaws that let anyone with a couple cans of spray paint trigger collapse. I didn't get to the somewhat trickier question of which parts can fail (due to time, use, nature, or sabotage) before collapse. Though I guess that might also be answered by the engineering design, and traceable to requirements and applicable standards.
- lolinder 2y ago
  The analogy (being only an analogy) doesn't explain what negligent engineering flaws you're referring to, you simply imply they exist and expect everyone else to nod along. Are the security flaws in Windows notably worse than the patches that any other major OS needs? Or are there simply more of them that are discovered because a Windows vulnerability is a much juicier target?