Or we show that we can deliver safely and resist business pressure to deliver fast and cut costs, or the government is going to do it for us.
People just don’t take virtual things as seriously, unless they involve conspiracies.
*edit: when I say "people", I mean the end-users who would otherwise demand change.,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equifax
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_data_breaches
https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/search/results?form_type=Basic&res...
Your point is well taken, even though things are not as bad they are still bad.
There is significant complexity and depth to front end tooling these days, and I consider my colleagues working in that space to be as talented and experienced as anyone else.
The issues in the frontend space seem to me to arise as an artifact of the fact that the work they produce is far more visible and directly evaluateable by non-technical people. The demands they have placed on them to deliver features quickly is far higher. They're far closer to the user-experience side of the product than most backend devs. And they have to deal with a tools ecosystem that evolves and changes far faster than others.
Trying to describe that complex issue in terms of stratification of developers into "serious engineers" and "not serious ones" does a disservice to the underlying problem, and doesn't help address it.
The flux and frenzy in the space is much more a sympton of the novel nature of the application architecture, the size and speed of growth of industry around it, and the rate of experimentation with frameworks and tools to quickly build extensive applications within it. Those are not self-inflicted, but circumstantial.
> That’s a separate issue from how smart people working on the issue may be.
I took particular issue with the original commenter dismissing an entire class of developers on the basis of what tools they worked with. I found it to be an example of gatekeeping that unfortunately is far too common in the industry.
Everyone who wrote it is retired or dead.
I sound like a broken record but it bears repeating: Most of these attacks are successful because companies neglect best practices. Whitelisting, security awareness training, UEBA, etc go a long way.
I would hope the free market would prune companies without proper cybersecurity but regulatory capture means it probably won’t. Equifax and its executives are doing just fine.
Large businesses can trivially set aside a few million dollars per year for ransoms. Small businesses don't have the ability to change the system.
Three things.
1. Markets have a slow reaction function, and it really is a reaction function. Let's Consider Equifax. Suppose that market were competitive. Then you'd have dozens or even hundreds of firms with all of that data that Equifax leaked. It seems unlikely that having more copies of data floating around more firms would decrease the risk of a breach. By the time the market signals, the damage is already done, and Equifax going out of business does diddly squat for impacted consumers.
2. Markets also have perverse incentives. Data breaches, in particular, are not necessarily expensive. I've been affected by at least a dozen, none of which had a material impact on the company that lost my data. None of those companies except equifax is subject to any sort of monopolistic forces. Some, like dropbox, are basically commodities. This might be different in the case of Kaseya and Solar Winds, which are effectively IT security outsourcing firms. Maybe. We'll see. If both of those firms continue to exist at similar scale, then the hypothesis that markets can do literally anything about IT security is completely discredited.
3. Equifax is definitely a monopoly/triopoly, but the situation is much closer to cartel behavior than regulatory capture.
Society expects technology to "move fast and break things", at least until the consequences get too visible. And we're not there yet.
Much as developers in the past couple of years have really started to grapple with the fact that as wonderful as software libraries are, dependencies have non-zero costs that come with their benefits, connections need to be seen as being having non-zero costs as well. I work in a similar situation myself and I know my philosophy over the past 10 years has very much gone from a permissive "well maybe I'll need this later" open-ended protocol design to a super-strict "this connection moves exactly this set of strongly-typed, verified messages over it and if anybody tries any funny business we slam it shut and scream bloody murder on the monitoring" philosophy. Especially challenging with the Web's support for messaging, which is great for being a web page but is flabby and bloated for a messaging solution, what with all these headers that do magical things in the web servers or anything in between.
As our systems get more and more complicated, biological metaphors seems to be ever more useful, and I think we need to look to nature's highly defensive "programming" a bit more for inspiration. Chemistry has some different characteristics from our programming environment, some to nature's advantage and some to its disadvantage, so we can't blindly copy it, but living things take 'message security' very seriously. You don't last long if you just blindly trust everything out there.
I don’t know how you coordinate this without regulation and something like P.Eng type certification (which comes with it’s own problems).
People without credentials but with experience and care can produce a reasonably secure system. People with credentials but under time pressure and contradictory requirements, and willingness to cut corners, can produce an unsafe system.
It's the system that fails. It can be inspected the way buildings are inspected.
If we required something like a P.Eng, which (at least theoretically) means you are responsible with real consequences (for say bad building design) then certified employees will be far more reluctant to attach their name to shoddy practices. This bubbles up to the employer. If a client requires you to have certified P.Eng sign off then there’s some reassurance it’s not just going to fall a part.
I don’t think you need this for everything in a stack, but security wise it might be a good idea.
The problem there is that everything on the stack is a potential hole. The chain is only as strong as its weakest link.
We accept that possibility in SaaS though... for now.
Most successful SaaS applications probably weigh in at 250k LOC or more (I know LOC isn't a great metric, but it serves as an idea of an application's complexity) and will use many libraries that themselves could be questionable. Seems like it would be pretty complicated to certify.
It's far less the programmers than the business plans that demand minimal investment. These are classic externalities that serve to damage society at large.
Think of all the security theater in airports, for instance. Think of all the to and fro in many policies as different officials get elected every few years.