Thread

1. jacobgold · 1790110395 · focus · HN ↗

   At this point, no one seems capable of keeping a large database safe. I assume all medical and biographical information that exists is in the hands of the major state actors.

   China hacked 22.1 million records of US government employees:

   <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;2015_Office_of_Personnel_Management_data_breach" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;2015_Office_of_Personnel_Manag...

   1. coldpie · 1790111715 · focus · HN ↗

      It is unthinkable to me that anyone believes there is such a thing as computer security after so many years of nonstop hacks and leaks. If you have a computer and it is connected to a network with access to the Internet, assume that computer is semi-public. Meaning, if someone was interested enough in accessing your computer, they could do it. Do not hook any computer with access to anything that would be devastating if it was made public to the Internet. Do not put anything that would be devastating if it was made public onto someone else&#x27;s Internet-connected computers.

      For example, do not hook your goddamn water or traffic or electricity infrastructure up to the goddamn Internet, and then, do fire the guy who suggested it.

      The correct analogy for computer security is not locks and keys and doors and gates. It is a house in a floodplain. Your house will not survive the flood of it hits you. Do not store anything critical or irreplaceable in that house.

      1. josephg · 1790114976 · focus · HN ↗

         &gt; It is unthinkable to me that anyone believes there is such a thing as computer security after so many years of nonstop hacks and leaks.

         Of course there is. For example, SeL4’s security and reliability proofs still hold in the world of LLMs. The problem is that most software isn’t written on that firm foundation. Instead, most software is made by people with the philosophy of “if it looks like it works, ship it”. You don’t get secure software by working like that, because security vulnerabilities aren’t visible.

         We - humans - know how to write secure software. Just like we know how to make safe aeroplanes. The problem isn’t that we lack the capability to make secure computers. The problem is we don’t have a culture of security. Secure software is - somehow - niche. And as such, it’s much more expensive. And nobody wants to pay.

         1. taurath · 1790119248 · focus · HN ↗

            &gt; Instead, most software is made by people with the philosophy of “if it looks like it works, ship it”.

            I work in secure systems and it’s shocking how many people believe this - the incentives from management are all about it too.

            1. TeMPOraL · 1790162672 · focus · HN ↗

               I&#x27;d argue the management has a point there; without a pressure to ship, nothing would ever get released, because computer security has not yet understood the basic concepts that every non-computer security work does:

               - nothing is, can be, or even should be 100% secure; the optimal rate of security incidents in society is not 0 (with apologies to &#x27;patio11)

               - security is a simultaneous trade-off against costs and usability, and those two other factors are more important:

               -- security is achieved primarily through raising costs for attackers to beyond profitability, and reducing impact of such attacks (due to &quot;not in isolation from the world&quot; below, this also mostly translates to costs)

               -- if &quot;properly secured&quot; (in the current cybersecurity sense) product&#x2F;service cannot fulfill its function anymore, then you may just as well not make it; either way, no point in paying you for security work

               - security isn&#x27;t done in isolation from other systems and the world at large; &quot;if this happens we&#x27;ll go straight to filing crime report with the police&quot; is perfectly legitimate security measure (even if it works somewhat less well on the Internet); similarly, &quot;this is secured by us having insured against it&quot; is also a valid solution to some security problems

               1. NooneAtAll3 · 1790171306 · focus · HN ↗

                  what&#x27;s patio11?

                  1. k1t · 1790172352 · focus · HN ↗

                     <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.kalzumeus.com&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.kalzumeus.com&#x2F;

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.