Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected]
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Many software developers care even less about security than the people who use the software. Their attitude is that it’s just more work to do things in a secure manner. It’s only after a major security breach that they fix their security holes.
Most individuals care about security, but most companies’ reward structure does not reward proactive security measures. Alice will get a much bigger bonus if she spends 20 hours straight fixing a zero-day exploit in the wild than if she had spent a week implementing proper safeguards in the first place.
That's not fair. I care about security a lot. But implementing security takes time, and hiring me for more hours costs more money. So most entities that need software developed want the solution that costs less and is faster to develop, they don't really understand what "security" even means. And the reality is, if you really want security in your software, you're not hiring a dev to make a piece of software, it is a continuous expense to keep the software patched and secured, which is not what most companies want. I'm billing for the hours either way. You just need to point me to the guy who's willing to pay.
And I also don't know anyone who feels incentivized to fix security holes. It's the software equivalent of having to fix the leaky mystery toilet in a dive bar. Yes, the pay might be high, but it's also extremely stressful and you're taking on a lot more responsibility - because it's already too late. Plus it puts a strain on the relationship with the customer who paid you to develop the software, even though we both know they were the ones who didn't want to pay to prevent this in the first place. If you think I'd rather stay on high alert 24 hrs a day thursday-monday to fix some preventable shit, than be at home with my family on the weekend, you're insane. The bonus might make it tolerable. I'd still rather not.
At least you’re creating more job opportunities for IT Security people. :P
Worth pointing out this isn't usually down to developers choosing not to do it. But management either via direct decision making or deadlines.
It's not that they don't care, not at all. But when you have a road map and hard deadlines you don't have the option. And it's hard to sell security as a priority to leadership when the other option is features that can increase revenue.
Same thing in distribution. They promote "safety, safety, safety," but as soon as productivity dips, "you guys aren't hitting your numbers, you need to do better."
I had a feeling based on constant news of data breaches.