News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Cisco Fixes RV320/RV325 Vulnerability by Banning “curl” i... by kelnos on Thursday March 28, 2019 @05:17AM (#19510540)
You must live in a very nice, ideal world, where simply saying "no, that's not the right way to do it" will convince managers to ignore the pressures placed on them to, at times, value speed over correctness.
Re:Cisco Fixes RV320/RV325 Vulnerability by Banning “curl” i... by shawnz on Thursday March 28, 2019 @08:48AM (#19511623)
What they are saying is that this isn't just "the wrong way to do it". It doesn't actually fix the problem it's supposed to fix, therefore it's actually wrong to say it's a functioning patch.
Re:Cisco Fixes RV320/RV325 Vulnerability by Banning “curl” i... by Aeolun on Thursday March 28, 2019 @09:03AM (#19511748)
Of course, but their boss doesn’t know that (or care about it), he just wants to see the fixed bug graph line approach the total bug graphline.

It’ll be totally explainable as engineer failure if something somehow doesn’t work.

Re:Cisco Fixes RV320/RV325 Vulnerability by Banning “curl” i... by anyfoo on Thursday March 28, 2019 @11:40AM (#19513272)
Apparently I do? Not sure what you want to hear here, but management does listen to me and my engineering peers. Sometimes things are a bit gray and fuzzy, but in this case here where they definitely are not, I am absolutely certain that there would be no overriding of our arguments.
Re:Cisco Fixes RV320/RV325 Vulnerability by Banning “curl” i... by kelnos on Monday April 01, 2019 @05:33PM (#19548524)
That's awesome, actually. For me, it's not as bad as Cisco seems, but there are definitely times I get overruled and have to take shortcuts that I'm not always comfortable taking.