On The Insider: Britney's Bikini-Clad Top 10
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 1 of 15:
Next »
Security is not a function of popularity.
Have a seat and listen to yet another stupid analogy.

A shipping company has a problem with their boats sinking. It has 300 ships. A smaller shipping company has only 3 ships and none of them sink. Customers are becoming wary of the larger shipping company because they don't want to lose their goods. An investigation is launched. It was discovered that the larger company's ships were full of holes. The CEO defended his ships by blaming the captains for not bailing the ships often enough. The smaller company's ships didn't have any holes in them.

So if the smaller shipping company suddenly got popular and had 300 ships, they still wouldn't be sinking. They would not be sinking because there would still be no holes in them.

Software gets compromised because it has holes in it. More holes may be found because of popularity but no holes will be created because of popularity. The security holes were there before, during, and after popularity. The security holes are there because the software maker put them there intentionally or by error. It doesn't matter which, they still put them there.

Posted by: kozmcrae   Posted on: 05/13/09 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use
Reply to Story Reply to Message

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

Security is not a function of popularity.  kozmcrae | 05/13/09
Neat story, one problem with it though  NonZealot | 05/13/09
You're forgetting something.  kozmcrae | 05/13/09
How specifically is Linux more secure?  bbneo | 05/14/09
To be specifically unspecific.  kozmcrae | 05/17/09
Its not the water, its the pirates...  ajole | 05/14/09
There are 1,543 high level security holes in Windows.  kozmcrae | 05/14/09
I think Linux may have been better designed...  deowll | 05/14/09
I don't get it.  Marcos El Malo | 05/14/09
Security is not a function of Popularity? Duh.. We know this.  ElgatoNL | 05/14/09
I don't really need any help from you to prove my point.  kozmcrae | 05/14/09
Chris you are naive  unredeemed | 05/13/09
It will help since OS X currently has 0, nada, zilch protection  NonZealot | 05/13/09
@NonZealot  Axsimulate | 05/15/09
Process isolation can be pretty effective  honeymonster | 05/13/09

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads