3 ms·
That's true, there's a lot of ego in this. Just watch any DEFCON talk for examples. OTOH nobody wants to be the idiot who wrote the insecure code or don't want
by jiggy2011 14y ago
That's true, there's a lot of ego in this. Just watch any DEFCON talk for examples. OTOH nobody wants to be the idiot who wrote the insecure code or don't want their company shamed.
This can help developers persuade their bosses to allow them to spend the necessary time to diligently check their work for security issues.
Part of this is probably also the holywood perpetrated stereotype of the "hacker" as some evil/good mastermind who can destroy military infrastructure by typing a few commands on his terminal. This is seen as sexier than being some guy who writes code for a living.
- RyanZAG 14y ago"... the misdeeds of security industry and security researchers who become famous by uncovering the mistakes that people like Torvalds have missed." (from the article) That's kind of what he's talking about though, isn't it? That idiot who let the vulnerable code go live to half the world in the case of a Linux vulnerability would be Linus. You'd have to argue pretty well to be able to convince anyone that Linus is an idiot though! Security (especially at a kernel level) is likely far too complex to be just a checklist of "don't do this" or "do this" and it magically becomes secure.