Comment by wtbob
10 years ago
> I am sorry, security guys, but unless it's military-grade software, security is just another feature. And it is not a highest priority one.
I completely disagree: security is the foundation of any software system. Without security, the system simply cannot be trusted to do anything correctly, not even add 1 and 1 together. For far too long we've relied on our systems being accidentally correct rather than deliberately secure; we need to fix that.
If something's mathematically possible, then it will happen. We need to build systems where security flaws are impossible, because then … they won't happen.
Just for the record:
> So I personally consider security bugs to be just "normal bugs". I don't cover them up, but I also don't have any reason what-so-ever to think it's a good idea to track them and announce them as something special.
Linus Torvalds - http://yarchive.net/comp/linux/security_bugs.html
Here's a lengthier article about it - http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/business/2015/11/05/net-of-...
> Without security, the system simply cannot be trusted to do anything correctly, not even add 1 and 1 together.
Not really. For a simple example, imagine a calculator software which has been mathematically proven to work correctly for any number with 30 or less digits, but which overflows a fixed-size buffer if the user inputs a number with more than 30 digits. That software could absolutely be trusted to add 1 and 1 together, while still having a security issue.
I'm not sure it's mathematically possible to reduce your attack surface to 0.
Sure it is. Just take your computer, put it in a furnace, turn it to ash and bury it couple of feet in the ground. Now its attack surface is 0.
You would first have to verify the furnace and the "turn it to ash" process.
1 reply →
See "perfect solution fallacy"
It's not a fallacy if you're responding to someone who says "we absolutely must have a perfect solution"
1 reply →