Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

You're falsely equating "broken updates" and "security exploits" and I'm not sure why. I thought I was clear that I was comparing the two as separate negative occurrences with one happening more frequently than the other. Not that one would cause the other...

An upgrade provided by the company that is completely legitimate that completely renders the program unusable or destroys my workflow has happened far more often than my system being compromised has ever negatively affected me. I could count on a stub the number of times I've known my system to be compromised. I'd have to count on my hands using a binary method to count the number of times a legitimate update was botched.

I still update my programs. I just don't let them do it automatically. Leaving an extra few attack vectors up for a few days/a week to let the patch mature or for an emergency-fix patch (i.e. 30-->30.0.2 "Super major security exploit was live for 3 hours but we fixed it") to be released has always worked to my benefit. I've never had a negative outcome for waiting a few days to patch. I don't have to deal with botched releases or newly opened attack vectors. Instead I get to listen to the canaries in the mine.

Also what happens when an auto-updater gets compromised? I get to listen to the canaries. You get to be one of the canaries. So for that, I thank you.




Applications are open for YC Winter 2020

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: