In Case You Were Wondering: Software Will Remain Insecure

from the that-must-have-been-a-difficult-prediction dept

It's fun when people start coming out with absolutely obvious predictions for the future. Take, for example, this claim that software will remain insecure. Was there really anyone who thought otherwise? Our existing software infrastructure is layer upon layer of complexity, where every attempt at securing something probably just opens up more holes. Of course, this same guy is advocating that everyone sue Bill Gates for "the damage he has caused" from continually releasing insecure software. So, the claim is that software will remain insecure, but we should sue makers of insecure software? Sounds like a recipe for an awful lot of lawsuits -- and the sort of liability that would make developing software a pretty costly business.
Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    CloakedMirror, 30 Sep 2005 @ 5:21am

    One more reason I'm getting out...

    Sounds like a recipe for an awful lot of lawsuits -- and the sort of liability that would make developing software a pretty costly business.
    Between this attitude and the patent-crazy companies, it just isn't worth the pain for me to stay in the game anymore. Five years ago, I would have never dreamed I would be leaving software development; now I can barely wait for my opportunity to escape.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      NoSecurity, 30 Sep 2005 @ 9:12am

      Software Secure Liablity

      I can understand if open source had security issues, although I think it's more stable than purchased software, you know who I mean. My feeling is if I purchase a defective product from say Walmart, I bring it back. The same should go for purchased software, if it's defective i.e. security issues, then the company should be held liable and the consumer entitled to a full refund.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Sohrab Osati, 30 Sep 2005 @ 1:33pm

    Bad way to look at it

    You cannot look at software like its a walmart product. Its like buying something from Walmart, having random people tinker with it and break it, then want walmart to return it for you. If software were left alone and hackers and spammers didnt go after security holes, then there would be no problem.

    Its like buying a car with a full warranty, giving it to random people to drive the crap out of and destroy the transmission, then expecting the company to take the car back because its defective.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Jason, 1 Oct 2005 @ 6:40pm

      Re: Bad way to look at it

      No, if I buy a product from Walmart that is designed to hold sensitive data, as often times happens with software (i.e. passwords, autocomplete for web pages and other such info), and someone picks it up, shakes it a little bit, and it falls open, then I can and will hold Walmart liable, the same should go for all software, if it makes an honest attempt at thwarting things, which most doesn't even come close to qualifying as an honest attempt, then they shouldn't be held responsible for their failure, but if it's lax security because they didn't pay attn to it, yet advertise it as "the most secure" blah blah, then of course they should be held liable.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Essential Reading
Techdirt Insider Chat
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.