Quoting from the article:
''You can't really blame the developers,''

I couldn't disagree more with that ...

It's completely the developers fault (and managers). 'Security' isn't
something that should be thought of as an 'extra' or an 'added bonus'
in an application. Typically it's just about programming _correctly_!

The article says it's a 'communal' problem (i.e: consumers should
_ask_ for secure software!). This isn't exactly true, and not really
fair. Insecure software or secure software can exist without
consumers. They don't matter. It's all about the programmers. The
problem is they are allowed to get away with their crappy programming
habits - and that is the fault of management, not consumers, for
allowing 'security' to be thought of as something seperate from

Consumers can't be punished and blamed, they are just trying to get
something done - word processing, emailing, whatever. They don't need
to - nor should. really. - care about lower-level security in the
applications they buy. The programmers should just get it right, and
managers need to get a clue about what is acceptable 'programming' and
what isn't.

Just my opinion, anyway.

-- Michael

On Apr 6, 2005 5:15 AM, Kenneth R. van Wyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Greetings++,
> Another interesting article this morning, this time from eSecurityPlanet.
> (Full disclosure: I'm one of their columnists.)  The article, by Melissa
> Bleasdale and available at
> http://www.esecurityplanet.com/trends/article.php/3495431, is on the general
> state of application security in today's market.  Not a whole lot of new
> material there for SC-L readers, but it's still nice to see the software
> security message getting out to more and more people.
> Cheers,
> Ken van Wyk
> --
> KRvW Associates, LLC
> http://www.KRvW.com

Reply via email to