• conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    The feature that is live cannot possibly be secure. That’s the entire point.

    If you do not design every element that interacts with user data very consciously and deliberately around controlling access properly, you cannot get a result that is not massively vulnerable to bad actors. Security is a core design principle. It cannot possibly be achieved after the fact.

    • MudMan@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      Yeeeah, I’m thinking this conversation isn’t worth pursuing. My point is already up there.

      • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        It’s insane technology illiteracy like this that’s the reason that security is such a shitshow across the world and allows tech companies to just ignore the bare minimum effort. Tech CEOs should be criminally liable when gross negligence like this results in meaningful breaches to consumers.

        Sloppily patching the giant hole in your stone wall doesn’t make it hold water when there are 500 other cracks and smaller holes. If you didn’t consider “don’t have big holes” a feature that justified spending money on bricks at the start, you’re never going to get an end result that does the job.

        • MudMan@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          This is hilarious for life context reasons that I’m not gonna disclose here.

          But good one. I swear, this place sometimes is Dunning-Kruger headquarters. Gotta decide if “this place” means “the whole Internet” or not, one of these days.