• henfredemars@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    50
    ·
    7 months ago

    This is a tough bar. Security often cannot be prioritized alone. You have to have solid architecture and fix bugs because any bug can have potential security impacts. Your code has to be not garbage.

      • 1luv8008135@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        7 months ago

        Tough but necessary. Irrefutably necessary.

        Technology has evolved at faster than we’ve been able to secure it and now we’re paying the price with enterprise and state level breaches, and global annual internet fraud at an all time high.

        And not just software but physical goods too. We’ve produced without any consideration for end of product life cycle management and now we’re in a plastic crisis.

        Completely different spheres of society but so similar in so many ways.

    • herrcaptain@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      7 months ago

      Judging by the last month of our Microsoft 365 tenant at work, they have plenty of room to improve. (Maybe by expanding in-house QA instead of relying on their customers.)

      One of the several issues we ran into in the last few weeks was that you couldn’t download or view attachments in the Outlook Web app if you’d been logged in for over 10ish minutes.According to the official advisory, this was due to “code put in production designed to increase reliability.” That was a funny way of making things reliable. It was over a week until they’d pushed a fix for that one - right around the time more Outlook issues started popping up.

      So yeah, while I agree with you that this might be tough - it might just be the best move they’ve made in a while. Maybe it’ll cause them to pay more attention to fixing bugs, and focus less on solving problems no one has. (Apparently we, as customers, have been dying for an AI button on our keyboard, to easily access an AI feature now baked into the taskbar.)

    • PseudorandomNoise@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      7 months ago

      And in Microsoft’s case you also have to preserve backwards compatibility. It’s one of the reasons the OS continues to dominate despite how it treats its users.

        • Serinus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          They tend to make breaking changes every other release, which is always the release that people hate. (Granted, I don’t know wtf they’ve done with usability in Windows 11, but at least I can’t move the taskbar anymore.)

          • Ephera@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            Well, that’s a breaking change for usability. I’m talking e.g. not allowing any random process to access the clipboard.

    • Victor@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      7 months ago

      “Not garbage” seems like a low bar to overcome for a company with such long experience. 😅

        • Victor@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          What makes it garbage code? I mean, I don’t like Windows due to the user experience, but I have zero insight into the code itself because it’s proprietary closed-source and I’ve never worked at Microsoft.

          • Ephera@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            I mean, there is actually leaked source code of Windows XP out there, because, you guessed it, they had a leak of that, too.

            But I actually said “garbage code”, because I didn’t want to say that everything they’ve ever done is purely garbage. I didn’t want to claim that I have particular insight into specifically their code.

            I have to assume, though, that their code quality is garbage, because:

            • Lots of MS software is buggy. In particular, all those security issues are bugs, too.

            • They keep backwards-compatibility to just absurd degrees. To this day, you can’t create a file that’s called “aux”, for example, because at some point, they had to block that to retrofit filesystem support into their OS.
              At the very least, this is going to mean they’ll have tons of such workarounds and gotchas, which will make it difficult for new devs, but also offer more surface area for bugs/vulnerabilities.

            • Well, and then there’s some urban legends. For example, I’ve heard that the entirety of Windows is in one giant monorepo. I just quickly peaked into a supposed copy of the Windows XP leak and that did look the part…

            • Victor@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              7 months ago

              All software is buggy 😅

              But yeah, keeping backwards compatibility does tend to open a lot of bug surfaces, like you say. Though IMO that’s due to the decision to do so, rather than the code itself. I’m sure they do their best with the corporate decisions to which they have to adhere. But you probably didn’t mean they are bad coders, merely that the end product becomes buggy, I suppose. 😊

    • fluckx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      7 months ago

      But we just bought tool X that is ISO certified AND soc2. How are we not secure yet? Does the tool not work?!?