2 ms·

> I agree that attitudes towards security are generally very poor, but breaking working infrastructure sounds like a crazy practice. Yes, breaking infrastructu

> I agree that attitudes towards security are generally very poor, but breaking working infrastructure sounds like a crazy practice. Yes, breaking infrastructure is bad. But letting already broken infrastructure continue can be worse. The point is that we want a better way to detect when breaking changes happen so that security fixes can be applied without breaking anything, while permitting optional upgrades on our own schedule for other features. There doesn't seem to be a great solution yet, it's either "it never breaks but you're possibly vulnerable to security issues that can't be easily patched", or "things can break at any time due to updates so we have to manually verify this doesn't happen".

TeMPOraL 2y ago
Yeah, though 'jcelerier brought up a case where "insecure" behavior is a feature, and the more "secure" design is directly incompatible with it. These cases of breakage can't easily be solved though better coding, and are not random mistakes - there's a fundamental incompatibility that needs to be resolved.
- naasking 2y ago
  > Yeah, though 'jcelerier brought up a case where "insecure" behavior is a feature, and the more "secure" design is directly incompatible with it I don't think it's fundamentally incompatible with a secure design though, you just need to reify the authority to do those things so you can explicitly grant them to specific programs as appropriate.
  - jcelerier 2y ago
    this is how you end up with the living hell that are Android and iOS
    - naasking 2y ago
      That seems a little melodramatic, particularly since your only other options are that every untrusted program can access every authority like capturing every keystroke, or all programs are effectively neutered.
      - jcelerier 2y ago
        > every untrusted program can access every authority like capturing every keystroke, The most used desktop OS on the planet has allowed this since forever and the world hasn't ended
        naasking 2y ago
        "World ending" is not the only valid security metric. Lots of viruses, worms and security vulnerabilities have. This is increasingly untenable as more of people's lives are in data.

TeMPOraL 2y ago

Yeah, though 'jcelerier brought up a case where "insecure" behavior is a feature, and the more "secure" design is directly incompatible with it. These cases of breakage can't easily be solved though better coding, and are not random mistakes - there's a fundamental incompatibility that needs to be resolved.

naasking 2y ago
> Yeah, though 'jcelerier brought up a case where "insecure" behavior is a feature, and the more "secure" design is directly incompatible with it I don't think it's fundamentally incompatible with a secure design though, you just need to reify the authority to do those things so you can explicitly grant them to specific programs as appropriate.
- jcelerier 2y ago
  this is how you end up with the living hell that are Android and iOS
  - naasking 2y ago
    That seems a little melodramatic, particularly since your only other options are that every untrusted program can access every authority like capturing every keystroke, or all programs are effectively neutered.
    - jcelerier 2y ago
      > every untrusted program can access every authority like capturing every keystroke, The most used desktop OS on the planet has allowed this since forever and the world hasn't ended
      - naasking 2y ago
        "World ending" is not the only valid security metric. Lots of viruses, worms and security vulnerabilities have. This is increasingly untenable as more of people's lives are in data.