3 ms·

Security was literally nonexistent. If you were at the console, you had control of the machine. Pwning one over the network was probably not difficult, though

• cturner 12y ago
  Is that a bad thing? I wonder sometimes how much we lose in develop collaboration due to security layers. I can imagine running a cool multiuser image in a prototyping language like to.
  • bitwize 12y ago
    If security is important, you lose something in terms of getting shit done. It's up to you or your organization what the tradeoff is. Fun fact: At one company I worked at, it was a matter of security policy that every machine in the company run the Bit9 binary whitelisting software. Every. Single. One. Including all the dev machines. In addition, it was decided that valuable corporate assets such as source control be airgapped from the outside network, making it difficult to run a dev machine that could access both the repo and the Web where all your documentation is. But Security was determined to be Priority One at that company, so productivity had to take the hit. If you develop the tech ten times slower and with ten times greater annoyance to your engineers, that was a worthy price to pay for not having it stolen by scary foreign spear phishers.
• pavement 12y ago
  But given the level of expertise which would have supposedly been their target market, wouldn't this have been an ideal environment for security analysts to develop within? If you buy into the sales pitch, highly trained teams of developers would be properly outfitted with workstations well-suited to roll their own crypto, for development purposes, and then easily test against a wide array of complex scenarios.