Greetings,
I noticed an interesting article about a mobile phone virus affecting
Symbian-based phones out on Slashdot today. It's an interesting read:
http://it.slashdot.org/it/05/04/06/0049209.shtml?tid=220tid=100tid=193tid=137
What particularly caught my attention was the sentence, Will
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
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
I have blogged at a high level about some work I am doing on security aspects in
SOA and Web Services. Service Oriented Security (SOS) architecture defines a set
of architectural views, their key consituents, constraints, and relationships.
As the SOA space continues to evolve our software
I think it's a matter of SHARED reponsibility. Yes, the programmers and
their managers are directly responsible. But it's consumers who create
demand, and consumers who, out of ignorance, continue to fail to make
the connection between bad software security and the viruses, privacy,
and other
And I couldn't disagree more with your perspective, except for your
inclusion of managers in parenthesis.
Developers take direction and instruction from management, they are not
autonomous entities. If management doesn't make security a priority,
then only so much secure/defensive code can be
Wonder what happens if we apply that same logic to building design or bridge
design and
contstruction?
Those who don't place blame at the source are just trying to blame shift. Bad
idea..
Mike Hines
---
Michael S Hines
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original
On Wednesday 06 April 2005 09:26, Michael Silk wrote:
The last thing I want is my mobile phone updating itself. I imagine
that sort of operation would take up battery power, and possibly cause
other interruptions ... (can you be on a call and have it update
itself?)
I vividly remember a lot
I would think this might work, but I - if I ran a software development
company - would be very scared about signing that contract... Even if
I did everything right, who's to say I might not get blamed? Anyway,
insurance would end up being the solution.
What you *should* be scared of is a contract
On Apr 7, 2005 3:12 AM, Kenneth R. van Wyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 06 April 2005 09:26, Michael Silk wrote:
The last thing I want is my mobile phone updating itself. I imagine
that sort of operation would take up battery power, and possibly cause
other interruptions ... (can
Jeff,
On Apr 7, 2005 11:00 AM, Jeff Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would think this might work, but I - if I ran a software development
company - would be very scared about signing that contract... Even if
I did everything right, who's to say I might not get blamed? Anyway,
insurance
On Apr 7, 2005 1:16 AM, Goertzel Karen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think it's a matter of SHARED reponsibility. Yes, the programmers and
their managers are directly responsible. But it's consumers who create
demand, and consumers who, out of ignorance, continue to fail to make
the connection
Kenneth R. van Wyk wrote:
Greetings,
I noticed an interesting article about a mobile phone virus affecting
Symbian-based phones out on Slashdot today. It's an interesting read:
http://it.slashdot.org/it/05/04/06/0049209.shtml?tid=220tid=100tid=193tid=137
What particularly caught my attention
Inline
On Apr 7, 2005 1:06 AM, Dave Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And I couldn't disagree more with your perspective, except for your
inclusion of managers in parenthesis.
Developers take direction and instruction from management, they are not
autonomous entities. If management doesn't
14 matches
Mail list logo