On: The alarming state of secure coding neglect

[amelius]

Replace "security" by "safety", and I suspect you have the same problems.

I wonder how that will work out with e.g. self-driving cars.

[yoz-y → amelius]

I would be surprised if safety was not very high on the list of priorities. Getting hacked is always a nebulous proposal but I think it is quite easy to describe the consequences of somebody being hurt or killed by your product.

[amelius → yoz-y]

"We need to add this feature to the car immediately!"

"We can't do that because it would mean we would have to re-test the codebase, meaning we'd have to test-drive the car for hundreds of thousands of miles."

"Can't we take a shortcut? I believe the change is quite innocent. And the competitor already has this feature."

"Ok, sounds reasonable. Make the change."

[user5994461 → amelius]

You are assuming that car manufacturers operate like web companies.

Tip: They do not.

[curioussavage → user5994461]

"Sir our car won't pass smog tests!"

"Oh no! Now we will need to do x and y and z and it will cost x dollars"

"Well we could adjust the software.."

"Sounds great!"

Yep, car industry...

[AstralStorm → curioussavage]

Easily caught and heavily fined. (Not to mention loss of PR.)

[tomsthumb → user5994461]

Car companies are, somewhat terrifyingly, becoming web companies (in part).

[0xbadcafebee → yoz-y]

Safety investment is a by-product of how much money you're likely to get sued for. (or in the case of airplanes, more a side-effect of regulations and preventing customers' fears from affecting sales)