Testing with these 3 will cover 96% of your sites visitors. Testing on a Mac is always a good idea. For large sites, expecting large audiences, you may want to go further.
As a web developer, I test with these 3, and that's it. Some people go to great lengths when testing, and all I can say is "you're lucky to have the time and budget to do all that." My personal "bread & butter" comes from $500 web sites that I build in a day or so. I am not going to add another 6 hours of testing to ensure broad-reaching compatibility.
Besides, adding links to popular browsers and listing recommended viewing sizes gets you out of trouble.
A bad server may not have killed someone... yet. However, a bad server, may or may not have, in this case, caused someone financial ruin, leaked sensitive information, etc.
"Mission critical" may mean different things to different people. When I think "mission critical," I think medical systems, military systems, and the like. However, one of my clients thinks "mission critical" regarding his hotel reservation system.
The point here is that people can get hurt, physically, or otherwise by servers they are supposed to be able to trust. When that trust is abused by negligence on the part of the servers owners, those owners should be liable for the damages. Negligence may be the key word here. If it wasn't possible to prevent the damage that was caused, then I couldn't see how the server owner could be to blame. On the other hand, running an unsecured server should be grounds for a lawsuit.
I would be pissed to be reading a major news site, for example, and then find out later that I contracted a trojan which stole passwords and other information from me, from that site. I would feel as though a major news site should be a trusted resource, and would be abusing my trust by not keeping their servers secure.
A doctor at a hospital can be viewing a web site hosted on a compromised server when the malicious code is downloaded and installed. Since the doctors networked pc may have access to things like patient records and things like that, there is still a very large risk there.
Your point is well-taken though. Mission-critical systems themselves aren't normally connected to the outside world. However, using a hospital as an example again, the malicious code could take down an extranet that provides information about current patients. This could cause disorder within the hospital - again, a risk.
People with unpatched/unsecured servers should be responsible for just this reason. It makes sense to inspect and maintain a vehicle for road safety, to ensure the safety of the driver and others. It also makes sense, I think, to hold server owners accountable for the security and maintenance of a server, to protect the server owner, and the users of that server.
Gee... it couldn't be the size of the feed itself, could it? Hell, I'll just throw a thousand records into an xml structure. RSS, while convenient, is inefficient in my book.
Yes, and when a mission-critical computer system goes down, say a hospital computer system, and lives are possibly enangered by this "annoyance," it becomes a little more clear why this sort of thing needs to be addressed publicly. People should be fined for not patching their systems (which has nothing to do with this), and need to have a comprehensive security plan in place. We fine people for driving a car with bald tires because its a risk to others, we should be able to hold owners of servers responsible as well. Lives ARE at risk here!
Just out of moral "niceness," we should all know if we may have visited a compromised site.
The downside to this is that maybe some site owners will not report their site as being compromised in the future out of fear of losing business once word spreads.
Slashdot Mirror
I haven't come across any service, or web site, for that matter, that can push more than what my sloppy-ass comcast broadband can handle.
There is no doubt that right after Al Gore invented the internet, this was his next idea.
Testing with these 3 will cover 96% of your sites visitors. Testing on a Mac is always a good idea. For large sites, expecting large audiences, you may want to go further. As a web developer, I test with these 3, and that's it. Some people go to great lengths when testing, and all I can say is "you're lucky to have the time and budget to do all that." My personal "bread & butter" comes from $500 web sites that I build in a day or so. I am not going to add another 6 hours of testing to ensure broad-reaching compatibility. Besides, adding links to popular browsers and listing recommended viewing sizes gets you out of trouble.
A bad server may not have killed someone... yet. However, a bad server, may or may not have, in this case, caused someone financial ruin, leaked sensitive information, etc. "Mission critical" may mean different things to different people. When I think "mission critical," I think medical systems, military systems, and the like. However, one of my clients thinks "mission critical" regarding his hotel reservation system. The point here is that people can get hurt, physically, or otherwise by servers they are supposed to be able to trust. When that trust is abused by negligence on the part of the servers owners, those owners should be liable for the damages. Negligence may be the key word here. If it wasn't possible to prevent the damage that was caused, then I couldn't see how the server owner could be to blame. On the other hand, running an unsecured server should be grounds for a lawsuit. I would be pissed to be reading a major news site, for example, and then find out later that I contracted a trojan which stole passwords and other information from me, from that site. I would feel as though a major news site should be a trusted resource, and would be abusing my trust by not keeping their servers secure.
A doctor at a hospital can be viewing a web site hosted on a compromised server when the malicious code is downloaded and installed. Since the doctors networked pc may have access to things like patient records and things like that, there is still a very large risk there.
:)
Your point is well-taken though. Mission-critical systems themselves aren't normally connected to the outside world. However, using a hospital as an example again, the malicious code could take down an extranet that provides information about current patients. This could cause disorder within the hospital - again, a risk.
People with unpatched/unsecured servers should be responsible for just this reason. It makes sense to inspect and maintain a vehicle for road safety, to ensure the safety of the driver and others. It also makes sense, I think, to hold server owners accountable for the security and maintenance of a server, to protect the server owner, and the users of that server.
Just my 2 cents
Gee... it couldn't be the size of the feed itself, could it? Hell, I'll just throw a thousand records into an xml structure. RSS, while convenient, is inefficient in my book.
Yes, and when a mission-critical computer system goes down, say a hospital computer system, and lives are possibly enangered by this "annoyance," it becomes a little more clear why this sort of thing needs to be addressed publicly. People should be fined for not patching their systems (which has nothing to do with this), and need to have a comprehensive security plan in place. We fine people for driving a car with bald tires because its a risk to others, we should be able to hold owners of servers responsible as well. Lives ARE at risk here!
Just out of moral "niceness," we should all know if we may have visited a compromised site. The downside to this is that maybe some site owners will not report their site as being compromised in the future out of fear of losing business once word spreads.
Erers and Omisions Insurance :)
$700 a year for me and my staff. I wouldn't code without it since we are a "Microsoft Shop."