Hold vendors liable for buggy software, group says - 0 views
-
"The only way programming errors can be eradicated is by making software development organizations legally liable for the errors," he said. SANS and Mitre, a Bedford, Mass.-based government contractor, also released their second annual list of the top 25 security errors made by programmers. The authors said those errors have been at the root of almost every major type of cyberattack, including the recent hacks of Google and numerous utilities and government agencies. According to the list, the most common mistakes continue to involve SQL injection errors, cross-site scripting flaws and buffer overflow vulnerabilities. All three have been well-known problems for
-
A coalition of security experts from more than 30 organizations is urging enterprises to exert more pressure on software vendors to ensure that they use secure code development practices. The group, led by the SANS Institute and Mitre Corp., offered enterprises recent hacks of Google draft contract language that would require vendors to adhere to a strict set of security standards for software development. In essence, the terms would make vendors liable for software defects that lead to security breaches. "Nearly every attack is enabled by [programming] mistakes that provide a handhold for attackers," said Alan Paller, director of research at SANS, a security training and certification group. -
Of course, a more general way to address this and other "business" generated problems / abuses (like expensive required "arbitration" by companies owned and in bed with the companies requiring the arbitration!), is to FORBID contract elements that effectively strip any party of certain "rights" (like the right to sue for defectives; the right to freedom of speech; the right to warranty protections; the right to hold either party to public or published promises / representations, etc.). Basically, by making LYING and DECEIT and NEGLIGENCE liability and culpability unrestricted. Or will we hear / be told that being honest and producing a quality product is "anti-business"? What!? Is this like, if I can't lie and cheat being in business isn't worth it!? If that is true, then those parties and businesses could just as well "go away"! Just as "conservatives" say other criminals like that should. One may have argued that the software industry would never have "gotten off the ground" (at least, as fast as it did) if such strict liability had been enforced (as say, was eventually and is more often applied to physical building and their defects / collapses). That is, that the EULAs and contracts typically accompanying software ("not represented as fit for any purpose" more or less!) had been restricted. On the other hand, we might have gotten software somewhat slower but BETTER - NOT being associated with or causing the BILLIONS of dollars in losses due to bugs, security holes, etc. Others will rail that this will merely "make lawyers richer". So what if it will? As long as government isn't primarily "on the side" of the majority of the people (you know, like a "democracy" should be), then being able to get a individual "hired gun" is one of the only ways for the "little guy" to effectively defend themselves from corporate criminals and other "special interest" elites.
