On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 12:21:30PM +1000, Michael Silk wrote:
>  Back to the bridge or house example, would you allow the builder to
> leave off 'security' of the structure? Allow them to introduce some
> design flaws to get it done earlier? Hopefully not ... so why is it
> allowed for programming? Why can people cut out 'security' ? It's not
> extra! It's fundamental to 'programming' (imho anyway).

Even builders and architects do experiment and introduce new things.
Not all of these are outright success. We have a wobbly bridge in UK and
there is(was) new terminal at Charles de Gaulle airport in Paris.

Every profession makes mistakes. Some are more obvious and some not. I am
almost certain that architects can tell you many more stories where
things were not done as secure as they should have been.

Comparisons can be misleading.


Damir Rajnovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, PSIRT Incident Manager, Cisco Systems
<http://www.cisco.com/go/psirt>      Telephone: +44 7715 546 033
200 Longwater Avenue, Green Park, Reading, Berkshire RG2 6GB, GB
There are no insolvable problems.
The question is can you accept the solution?

Reply via email to