American university pays ransomware ransom despite presence of backups – Computer – News

Although I agree that nuance is necessary, I am still a strong believer that those who deserve well to claim great responsibility; also be punished just as hard.

You choose absolutely the wrong one for that; unfortunately something that is common among those who mainly know the server / PC-running IT industry and are often unfamiliar with “product liability”.

Selling faulty, incorrectly designed products and recalling them monthly is the norm in the software industry. Your solution is to get the customers, to make the victims of these defective products responsible for the damage caused by the defects.

Someone at Boeing had a great responsibility to choose whether an extra light became optional or not with the 737Max. Boeing lost billions as a result, even just before the Corona event.

Takata made some mistakes in manufacturing airbags, including chemicals in Mexico. Takata went bankrupt through all insurance claims and three employees were sent for it criminal court because they had forged data.

Someone at Intel had a big responsibility, with a choice between security and performance. This person chose performance. The result was a major ‘virtual recall’ in which all Intel CPUs slowed down. As a result, to achieve the same performance, customers had to extra Buy Intel CPUs. The result was a record profit for Intel.

It’s completely crazy that a maker of a complex product like an autopilot + airplane is liable for the mess they deliver, but a software supplier in the EULA that they will never be liable for an amount greater than the value of the software, and pass the rest of the damage on to the customer.

Take Lion Air from Indonesia: They bought a defective product from Boeing; and that defect related to safety. The “dearly paid” people (CTO?) At Lion Air did not invest in making the 737-Maxen more secure.

Ultimately, there is a claim for the deceased people. Should the CTO at Lion Air be fired for not hiring security staff to patch Boeing’s mess? Does the CEO at Lion Air now have to consider how much money he wants to put (and weigh that against claims from lost lives) into investigating and fixing the Boeing mess?

Ultimately, it is the supplier of the software who makes a decision:

-We do not invest an amount A in formal verification of our software, or an amount B eg to store data of each user in encrypted form; so that any hacker cannot hijack private data.

-We know that X universities will incur Y amount in damage as a result,

-We don’t pay A and B, X and Y pay the customer.

This total lack of liability for PC / server software, to a large extent, means that for an autopilot much more money has been invested in security than in the software on which the privacy of our data depends.

It’s a drunken artificial distinction, perpetuated by the disgusting political lobby of Microsoft, Adobe (Flash uch uch), Apple, Oracle, and other series distributors of defective products and institutionalizers of planned and bundled * (!!!) recalls of their defective products.

* because more than 1 defect is repaired at a time

At one point, planes and cars weren’t safe either, and their makers (like the hole cheese software industry today) shouted that it was too complex to secure it. But look what you can achieve with liability in half a century!

[Reactie gewijzigd door kidde op 22 augustus 2020 01:22]

–