[impossiblefork]

I think what is actually the problem is the software and hardware manufacturers.

Secure use of any device requires a correct specification. These should be available to device buyers and there should be legal requirements for them to be correct and complete.

Furthermore, such specifications should be required also for software-- precisely what it does and legal guarantees that it's correct.

This hasn't ever been more feasible, also considering that we Europeans are basically at war with the Russians, it seems reasonable to secure our devices.

[Veserv]

We have already have that: ISO 15408, Common Criteria [1]. Certification is already required and done for various classes of products before they can be purchased by the US government.

However, large commercial IT vendors such as Microsoft and Cisco were unable to achieve the minimum security requirements demanded for high criticality deployments, so the US government had to lower the minimum requirements so their bids could be accepted.

At this point, all vendors just specify and certify that their systems have absolutely no security properties and that is deemed adequate for purchase and deployment.

The problem is not lack of specification, it is that people accept and purchase products that certify and specify they have absolutely zero security.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Criteria

[impossiblefork]

Yes, but consumers buy, for example, graphics cards with binary blobs and are certainly not sent a specification of the software in them, or of the interfaces, etc. and that is what I believe is the absolute minimum foundation.

So I mean an internal specification of all hardware interfaces and a complete description of software-- no source code, but a complete flow diagram or multi-process equivalent.

[JumpCrisscross]

> These should be available to device buyers and there should be legal requirements for them to be correct and complete

You're still left with a massive enforcement problem nobody wants to own. Like, "feds sued your kid's avourite toy maker because they didn't file Form 27B/6 correctly" is catnip for a primary challenger.

[clippyplz]

That's an incredibly tough sell, particularly for software. Who is it that should "require" these specifications, and in what context? Can I still put my scrappy code on Github for anyone to look at? Am I breaking the law by unwittingly leaving in a bug?

[impossiblefork]

Yes, but you wouldn't be able to sell it to a consumer.

They way I imagine it: no sales of this kind of thing to ordinary people, only to sophisticated entities who be expected to deal with the incompletely specified source code, so if a software firm wants to buy it that's fine, but you can't shrink wrap it and sell it to an ordinary person.

[joshfraser]

Modern software is layers upon layers of open-source packages and libraries written by tens of thousands of unrelated engineers. How do you write a spec for that?