I’d argue that it’s less about windows being a source of maladaptive behavior, and more about windows attracting users who don’t know better than to behave the way they do. Those same behaviors today are pretty risky in comparison, leading to threads like this one. The main differences were: 1) I was more technically savvy and thus not as likely to install something obviously dangerous and 2) One just wasn’t very likely to run into a repo impacted by supply chain compromise or somesuch. While the steps involved were different, the behaviors associated with installing software were not inherently more secure than windows at the time. Being a Linux user around that era involved regularly compiling code that practically I couldn’t review. > That blame still appropriately lies with maladaptive behaviors learned from Windows.Īs a Linux nerd who started tinkering around 2001, I’m having a hard time with this framing. Especially in an organization setting where the user is not actually the owner of the machine, but is using company equipment and software. It did what the authorized user told it to do.īut I can see the point of view that secure software could also mean software that makes it difficult for the authorized user to do dangerous things. In other words, the software was behaving as expected. So if I do something unsafe, even through ignorance or naivety, I still see that as being my fault. That is the relationship I want to have with a piece of tangible property that I paid money for. Be it privilege execution, code injection, remote code execution etc.Īs an end-user, I choose to use Linux because it does not stand between me and my computer. What does "secure software" mean? As a software engineer I've always thought about secure software as software that does not have bugs that can be exploited by non-authorized users. Yeah this conversation is borderline philosophical.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |