8 Improving Software Security A Discussion of Liability for Unreasonably Insecure Software
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
One of the recurring themes in discussions of the cybersecurity problem is the importance of improving software security. Mass-market software is commonly released containing multiple vulnerabilities. Attempts are then made to patch these vulnerabilities in the widely deployed software. The process is expensive and inadequate. It is likely that, for various reasons, the market is not able to generate the optimal balance of price and quality (including security-related attributes) for mass-market software. The market for key pieces of software may not be perfectly competitive. Second, the market is characterized by various information failures. Third, software security presents an economic externality problem. The insecurity of one user's computer imposes additional costs on others, beyond those suffered by the user. Furthermore, it appears that the incentives facing software developers are such that they focus on speed to market and the development of new features rather than on the security-related aspects of quality. This paper builds on previous work suggesting that the victim of a distributed denial of service attack (DDOS) is well placed to sue the vendor of unreasonably insecure software. This lawsuit would be based on negligence case law establishing that a defendant may be held responsible for exposing a plaintiff to an unreasonable risk of harm at the hands of third parties (namely those who launch the DDOS attack). This paper further develops this hypothetical negligence lawsuit, addressing the standard of care that should be demanded of software developers. Various classes of errors exist, ranging from well-known and fairly easily avoided coding errors to more high-level design problems. While the existence of the former types of errors may be argued to constitute negligence, the latter are less clear. As knowledge about secure design principles matures, it will be possible to include design errors within the scope of negligence. Nevertheless, it would be helpful for liability to serve as a spur to increase the attention paid to secure design so that better secure design techniques may be created and adopted. As a result, courts should require evidence that software developers have made a bona fide effort to include security considerations at all stages of the software development lifecycle.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».