Re:Boeing identifies new software problem on grounded 737 Max
by kjs3 on Thursday February 06, 2020 @09:09PM
(#22262607)
we need new processes, languages and tooling to make software provably correct
This is so not true.
Processes? Like T-CMM/TSM, FAA-iCMM, ISO 90003, TCSEC, TSP, etc., etc.?
Languages? Like Ada, MISRA, Modula-2/IEC1131, Cyclone, etc., etc.?
Tools? Like FRAMA-C, MALPAS, SPADE, SPARK, TLA+, etc., etc.?
The simple fact of the matter is that we've had all the processes, languages & tools to write high-reliability, secure code for decades. Go check out the CMU SEI for how long that one institution has been trying to get people to do the right thing.
The joke is that the software industry by and large wants to pretend we don't, and claim that there's some magical new tech that needs to get invented and when it arrives everyone will jump on it and suddenly software bugs will be a thing of the past. And every new tool, tech or whatever that shows up re-proves some unpleasant basic facts: writing secure, provable, reliable code is time consuming, usually difficult, which translates to relatively expensive. And the software industry doesn't want to hear that, or invest in it, and excuses it's miserable security record with "it's not us, the tech doesn't exist to do the job right".
As a sidenote, this is why I have a visceral distaste for the Rust people (the language seems fine). If they'd spent those (presumedly) thousands of man years building on and improving Ada instead of being all NIH averse we'd be much further down the road. They could have participated in the process and gotten their wish list included in the Ada-2012 standard and built on 35+ years of experience. But, hey, it's more fun to start from scratch every decade or so.
This is so not true.
Processes? Like T-CMM/TSM, FAA-iCMM, ISO 90003, TCSEC, TSP, etc., etc.? Languages? Like Ada, MISRA, Modula-2/IEC1131, Cyclone, etc., etc.? Tools? Like FRAMA-C, MALPAS, SPADE, SPARK, TLA+, etc., etc.?
The simple fact of the matter is that we've had all the processes, languages & tools to write high-reliability, secure code for decades. Go check out the CMU SEI for how long that one institution has been trying to get people to do the right thing.
The joke is that the software industry by and large wants to pretend we don't, and claim that there's some magical new tech that needs to get invented and when it arrives everyone will jump on it and suddenly software bugs will be a thing of the past. And every new tool, tech or whatever that shows up re-proves some unpleasant basic facts: writing secure, provable, reliable code is time consuming, usually difficult, which translates to relatively expensive. And the software industry doesn't want to hear that, or invest in it, and excuses it's miserable security record with "it's not us, the tech doesn't exist to do the job right".
As a sidenote, this is why I have a visceral distaste for the Rust people (the language seems fine). If they'd spent those (presumedly) thousands of man years building on and improving Ada instead of being all NIH averse we'd be much further down the road. They could have participated in the process and gotten their wish list included in the Ada-2012 standard and built on 35+ years of experience. But, hey, it's more fun to start from scratch every decade or so.