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. Veserv · 1790122745 · focus · HN ↗

            &gt; The problem isn’t that we lack the capability to make secure computers.

            Depends on the &quot;we&quot;. &quot;We&quot; have the capability to make secure computers like how &quot;we&quot; have the capability to make EUV lithography machines. There exists a relatively small number of people and organizations in the world who can do so. Microsoft does not have that capability. Google does not have that capability. Linux does not have that capability. Amazon does not have that capability. Apple does not have that capability. Cisco does not have that capability. IBM does not have that capability. etc. All of those organizations have tried for literal decades, thumped their chests about how they have awesome security year after year, and yet have totally and utterly failed despite their best efforts.

            Acquiring the capability to do so is difficult and challenging and requires years to invent if you start right this very second and know what you need to do, which these organizations emphatically do not. We need security at scale and fast. The only way forward is to scale up working solutions rather than letting the bozos who put us in this spot fail at scale with yet another promise that this time for sure they will solve the problem they have repeatedly failed at for decades.

            1. guerrilla · 1790124404 · focus · HN ↗

               It&#x27;s nothing like EUV.

               &gt; Microsoft does not have that capability. Google does not have that capability. Linux does not have that capability. Amazon does not have that capability. Apple does not have that capability. Cisco does not have that capability. IBM does not have that capability. etc

               This is all by choice. They could easily have that capsbility, very unlike EUV.

               1. tonyarkles · 1790125260 · focus · HN ↗

                  And the reasoning behind that choice is looking at the tradeoffs and saying “shipping more features faster is more important”

                  1. fn-mote · 1790127236 · focus · HN ↗

                     Part of the argument (aiui) is that there is no way that culture could ever change to producing secure systems. There are too many weaknesses embedded in the organizational structure.

                     1. tonyarkles · 1790172678 · focus · HN ↗

                        Yeah, just like a lot of organizational change, one approach would probably be to put together a small Skunkworks-type team to nail it on one specific product. Existence proofs have, in my experience, a pretty powerful effect on the naysayers.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.