The Six Dumbest Ideas in Computer Security (2005)

Re:The Six Dumbest Ideas in Computer Security (2005) by happymellon on Tuesday January 24, 2023 @11:51PM (#34514549)

The fundamental flaw is normally "but doing it correctly would cost too much and take too long, what can we do for $5 and a chocolate bar?".

Airline projects don't have the same level of issues because the FAA (or equivalent domestic authority) tells them to do it correctly.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Six Dumbest Ideas in Computer Security (2005) by Gigachad on Wednesday January 25, 2023 @12:36AM (#34514802)

Is there any real equivalent process for tech? It seems like the majority of security certifications is a box checking exercise where actually being secure has very little relation to how many boxes you checked.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Six Dumbest Ideas in Computer Security (2005) by SQueeeeeL on Wednesday January 25, 2023 @12:30AM (#34514760)

Except when they don't, then you get the Boeing 747 MAX literally avoiding mandatory safety evaluations and ignoring engineers

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Six Dumbest Ideas in Computer Security (2005) by happymellon on Wednesday January 25, 2023 @02:41AM (#34515531)

But that is notable for being unusual.

After the FAA agreed that the two crashes were similar it grounded all planes, revoked Boeings certification authority, and fined Boeing.

Has Lastpass received anything other than bad publicity?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Six Dumbest Ideas in Computer Security (2005) by anticensor on Wednesday January 25, 2023 @06:44AM (#34517142)

737 MAX, but otherwise correct.

[ Parent | on HN ]