3 ms·

Compartmentalizing it is an issue in itself. Replace "security" with "safety" for, IDK, space engineering or nuclear power. Does it still make sense? Safety a

by 3np 2y ago

Compartmentalizing it is an issue in itself. Replace "security" with "safety" for, IDK, space engineering or nuclear power. Does it still make sense? Safety and security need to be integral parts of processes. It is not something you can acquire from a vendor or split out as the responsibility of separate team(s) who have to internally battle for resources and interface with the core development through escalation requests...

TeMPOraL 2y ago
But safety isn't security, and your random SaaS pets.com clone isn't a space shuttle. Safety is more about reliability. Security in space systems is very much bolt-on and split out: the concern of everyone working on a rocket is that it flies and lands safely. Who is or isn't authorized to launch it is a worry of another department.
- archi42 2y ago
  Safety is not really about reliability. Maybe as a means to an end. It's about not killing people and maybe not destroying too much of your facility in case things go south. Safety systems take over if your chemical reaction overheats the reactor; they prevent your logistics team from moving a train while it's being loaded with dangerous chemicals (real example, the safety system was disabled by the logistics people - ironically the company put those with poor safety record from production to logistics, because they could do no harm there). You're mixing up safety systems with the property of "doing X is safe by construction" - but most plants inherently are not: e.g. in a small reactor that's manually fed, your employees can just input the wrong recipe by accident; the safety systems should then take care of the mess. Or your junior chemist (who needs an expensive, senior chemist for an established process?) can mess up the improvement to the recipe, resulting in rapid unscheduled disassembly of you poorly maintained reactor, including the building and one of its operators (sadly a real example).
HPsquared 2y ago
Security is PvP, safety is PvE. Different game, different tactics.
- archi42 2y ago
  See my reply to sibling comment: if you're thinking safety is purely PvE, you're in for a bad time. Humans are reckless idiots. If circumventing safety systems means they can go home 15 minutes earlier (or if it's the only/simplest easy to get reach some unrealistic high daily goal dictated from higher ups), some of us will happily risk their own health, and that of a whole city, to do so.
  - HPsquared 2y ago
    Ok, not 100%. Human Factors can be critical in a lot of cases. Similar to security, designers try to eliminate the system's reliance on human actions wherever possible. Still though, security is fighting against an opponent who searches for weak points and exploits them to the max. "Safety" protects against random natural accidental events (either internal or external in origin). If someone is just trying to get home, they want to get the job done quickly sure, but their intent is not to cause damage, their actions aren't targeted. It's a different risk profile.
    - archi42 2y ago
      Thanks for agreeing :) safety also protects against preventable human errors. Maybe my examples are bording on sabotage, eg "sabotage by accident".
tpmoney 2y ago
> Replace "security" with "safety" for, IDK, space engineering or nuclear power. Does it still make sense? Here's a question: Why do most safety regulations require the force of law to get companies to enact, but no laws were necessary to get companies to adopt the internet? "Safety" is in a similar boat to security, with the benefit that you usually don't have people actively trying to harm your employees. But Safety often gets tossed out the window when it gets in the way of accomplishing the real goals of the organization. Why is the US military exempt from a number of safety regulations that private companies are beholden to? Because the military believes those regulations will hamper their real mission, which is not keeping individual soldiers safe.
- TeMPOraL 2y ago
  Indeed. Also, it's even tougher to argue to stop increasing safety at some point, because it usually means arguing for accepting a certain number of lives or limbs lost. And yet we do, and we have to, because like with security, a perfectly safe system is one that does nothing at all.

by 3np 2y ago

TeMPOraL 2y ago

But safety isn't security, and your random SaaS pets.com clone isn't a space shuttle. Safety is more about reliability. Security in space systems is very much bolt-on and split out: the concern of everyone working on a rocket is that it flies and lands safely. Who is or isn't authorized to launch it is a worry of another department.

archi42 2y ago
Safety is not really about reliability. Maybe as a means to an end. It's about not killing people and maybe not destroying too much of your facility in case things go south. Safety systems take over if your chemical reaction overheats the reactor; they prevent your logistics team from moving a train while it's being loaded with dangerous chemicals (real example, the safety system was disabled by the logistics people - ironically the company put those with poor safety record from production to logistics, because they could do no harm there). You're mixing up safety systems with the property of "doing X is safe by construction" - but most plants inherently are not: e.g. in a small reactor that's manually fed, your employees can just input the wrong recipe by accident; the safety systems should then take care of the mess. Or your junior chemist (who needs an expensive, senior chemist for an established process?) can mess up the improvement to the recipe, resulting in rapid unscheduled disassembly of you poorly maintained reactor, including the building and one of its operators (sadly a real example).

HPsquared 2y ago

Security is PvP, safety is PvE. Different game, different tactics.

archi42 2y ago
See my reply to sibling comment: if you're thinking safety is purely PvE, you're in for a bad time. Humans are reckless idiots. If circumventing safety systems means they can go home 15 minutes earlier (or if it's the only/simplest easy to get reach some unrealistic high daily goal dictated from higher ups), some of us will happily risk their own health, and that of a whole city, to do so.
- HPsquared 2y ago
  Ok, not 100%. Human Factors can be critical in a lot of cases. Similar to security, designers try to eliminate the system's reliance on human actions wherever possible. Still though, security is fighting against an opponent who searches for weak points and exploits them to the max. "Safety" protects against random natural accidental events (either internal or external in origin). If someone is just trying to get home, they want to get the job done quickly sure, but their intent is not to cause damage, their actions aren't targeted. It's a different risk profile.
  - archi42 2y ago
    Thanks for agreeing :) safety also protects against preventable human errors. Maybe my examples are bording on sabotage, eg "sabotage by accident".

tpmoney 2y ago

> Replace "security" with "safety" for, IDK, space engineering or nuclear power. Does it still make sense? Here's a question: Why do most safety regulations require the force of law to get companies to enact, but no laws were necessary to get companies to adopt the internet? "Safety" is in a similar boat to security, with the benefit that you usually don't have people actively trying to harm your employees. But Safety often gets tossed out the window when it gets in the way of accomplishing the real goals of the organization. Why is the US military exempt from a number of safety regulations that private companies are beholden to? Because the military believes those regulations will hamper their real mission, which is not keeping individual soldiers safe.

TeMPOraL 2y ago
Indeed. Also, it's even tougher to argue to stop increasing safety at some point, because it usually means arguing for accepting a certain number of lives or limbs lost. And yet we do, and we have to, because like with security, a perfectly safe system is one that does nothing at all.