4 ms·

OK, just making sure I follow: They should exploit security holes and put people at risk to ensure that security research is not underfunded, which could lead t

OK, just making sure I follow: They should exploit security holes and put people at risk to ensure that security research is not underfunded, which could lead to someone exploiting security holes, which would put people at risk.

Lawtonfogle 11y ago
Your argument would make sense if all exploits were equal. Think of it more like infecting people with weakened/dead forms of potentially deadly diseases so they will be better protected against that disease. The weakened form, while it may not be risk free, is not equal to the harm of a full own infection.
- freshyill 11y ago
  > Think of it more like infecting people with weakened/dead forms of potentially deadly diseases so they will be better protected against that disease. If these guys want to be regarded as researchers, they need to act like them and be accountable like them. No ethics committee would ever approve a test like this.
  - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    The IRB as it currently stands it too strict with its regulations. Also, why should the researchers be regulated when the ones producing the things that are initially putting people into danger are not regulated (or are regulated by bureaucrats who couldn't tell you the difference between a buffer overflow and a SQL injection).
    - danielweber 11y ago
      > The IRB as it currently stands it too strict with its regulations. WTF are you talking about? There is no the IRB.
      - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
        >The IRBs as they currently stand are too strict with their regulations. Better?