Quoting "Wall, Kevin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I think that this practice of leaving out the "security > details" to just make the demo code short and sweet has got > to stop. Or minimally, we have to make the code that people > copy-and-paste from have all the proper security checks even > if we don't cover them in training. If we're lucky, maybe > they won't delete them when the re-use the code. I agree, and would like to extend it: security should be discussed *at the same time* that a topic is. Teaching security in a separate class, like I have been doing, reaches only a fraction of the audience, and reinforces an attitude of security as an afterthought, or security as an option. Comments in the code should explain (or refer to explanations of) why changing or deleting those lines is a bad idea. However, I'm afraid that it would irritate students, and make security the new "grammar and spelling" for which points are deducted from "perfectly valid write-ups" (i.e., "it's my ideas that count, not how well I spell"). So, this idea may be more successful with professionals courses than with undergrads. As far as students go, if it's not on the test it might as well be a policy that isn't enforced, so it's not an option to try to teach it but to not grade based on it. Good luck also in trying to get all professors to update their classes and cover security correctly... Please share any answers or insights as to this dilemma. Thanks, Pascal _______________________________________________ Secure Coding mailing list (SC-L) SC-L@securecoding.org List information, subscriptions, etc - http://krvw.com/mailman/listinfo/sc-l List charter available at - http://www.securecoding.org/list/charter.php
