Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 21st Mar 2008 22:21 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 306167
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 21:03 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 20:46 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 17:32 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2008-01-01
Yeah, of course. But just look at how security is treated by columnists:
"... and it's more secure too!"
I mean how can you tell ? Say, we fixed 10 security bugs or loopholes, but how do you know that there isn't a new bug exploitable in a more disastrous way?
Note that security is often more about human behaviour than bugs. Probably people are now more aware of privacy issues that should be handled by themselves, not software. I've seen disputes that social community portal is BAD because you get all the people's data on a platter. But wait, who did post the actual data?
So bragging about security when there's much to be tested and proven seems just like a marketing thing.
Of course if I were a developer I'd say we're more secure, because we've introduced anty-phising, prezeroed allocation, and so on. But you shouldn't blindly belive that: yap, now, i'm secure, coz, dudes on the web say so.
Cheers!