|
|
|
|
|
by athrowaway12
1289 days ago
|
|
> enforcement of security vulnerability should be by law I think whether there "should" be a law making you liable could depend on the details of the exploit. If you get exploited via rowhammer, I don't think anyone would blame you. It would be unreasonable if every small business running a website could be sued if they didn't defend against electromagnetic interference within the RAM. However, if you're Apple and say -- you could get pwned because someone clicked a button to register version 9000 on the public npm/pypi registry (https://medium.com/@alex.birsan/dependency-confusion-4a5d60f...) -- maybe I agree there's an argument for some accountability there :) |
|
Computing is the only industry, where people accept to live with tainted goods instead of forcing whoever sold them to pay back, cover for their damage or whatever.
We already have high integrity computing, digital stores with returns, consulting with warranty clauses, and some countries are finally waking up that computing shouldn't be a special snowflake.
https://www.twobirds.com/en/insights/2021/germany/the-german...