Skip to content

Comment on Should developers be sued for security holes?parent

Comments

FWIW, the life safety code (separate, but related to the NEC) does mandate emergency power for certain systems (fire pump, egress lighting) in public buildings (not homes). The NEC doesn't address attacks by hostile agents because that's not its purpose. It's to prevent people from getting electrocuted and to prevent electrical fires from starting. That's it.

My point is not that a code is going to provide 100% assurance from all possible forms of attack. It's quite the opposite. The code simply spells out how certain known failure modes are avoided. It's not a guarantee that nothing ever will go wrong. It's basically a list of specific things that have gone wrong in the past, and what things should be done to prevent them.

The point is to establish exactly what "reasonable measures" are for the purpose of determining liability, not to spell out a method for a fail-proof system. If you present yourself as a competent developer and the build someone a system that passes user input directly to the database and stores passwords in plaintext, you should be held accountable for damages resulting from a security breach that made use of those holes.

AboutSource Built by g1lg1l

Hackerly is an independent reader for Hacker News, built on the public HN API. Not affiliated with Y Combinator.