• Lemongrab@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    No bugs is a hard thing to accomplish, especially for an immerging technology (eg 0-day vulnerability)

      • gregoryw3
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not sure that counts? This was unfortunately due to a completely untested system, designed by one guy way over his head (ethically should have reported this to some governing body), and a company who lied about the non existent testing. This wasn’t just a singular bug but an entire failure throughout.

        • Norah - She/They@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yet, afterwards, the code running medical devices has been subject to the same standards that we set for tools themselves. The code embedded in a life support machine can’t fail.

          I think you also proved my point anyway, the problem was a system set up such that testing wasn’t done. Not that the testing itself wasn’t possible. It’s just expensive. So companies won’t do it unless they’re forced too by regulation.

          • gregoryw3
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Ohhh, yeah. I have no idea why back then code wasn’t seen for what it is. I’ve been told by older people that back then the idea that if it compiles it’s fine, was ok… or something along those lines. I think today we even still of a ton of those issues due to every framework and language being so different, lacking standardization.

            Throughout every thing I’ve ever learned, the biggest realization I’ve had was that without forcing policies, companies will do whatever is necessary to line their pockets.