How did original engineering certification prevent dangerous constructions? Did it force everyone to use a Big Company?

The fact that you're thinking purely in frameworks is the exact problem that plagues the software industry. Framework-focused development is why we're in this mess; frameworks make it easy for people who don't understand how to program to publish shitty software by copying-and-pasting code and fudging around a few strings or variables to match their use case. That kind of accessibility is great for low-stakes software, letting anyone make interesting toys, but should be completely unacceptable in a professional environment with, for example, people's fucking tax documentation at stake.

If I had my way, the certification process starts at the bottom of the stack, ie. you should be expected to have a functional knowledge of assembly instructions, memory management, registers, the call stack, and build up from there. Not that we need to write assembly on a daily basis, but all of the abstractions are built on top of that, and you cannot realistically engineer secure software if you don't understand what is being abstracted away. If you do understand the things being abstracted away, you have the fundamentals necessary to do good work with any programming language or framework. Throw in another certification starting from networking fundamentals if your job involves that. 30 years ago, most professional programmers had this level of understanding as table stakes, so we can hardly say it's an unrealistic burden that's impossible to meet.

Would it be a higher barrier to entry that massively cuts the size of the field working on sensitive software and slows software development down, yes. That is exactly what we need. There was a time when people built bridges that collapsed, then we implemented standards and expected engineers to do real work to make sure that didn't happen. Is that work expensive and expertise-intensive, yes, do bridges still collapse, only very rarely. We are witnessing software bridge collapses on a weekly basis, which should be seen as completely unacceptable. The harm is less obvious than when everyone on a bridge dies, but I do think that routinely leaking millions of people's sensitive data is causing serious harm and likely does lead to people dying in second-order effects.

The certification obviously would have to have teeth. A certification that you needed in order to do work as a software professional, which could be revoked for cases of carelessness or negligence, would disincentivize carelessness and negligence.

This is how airline pilot certificates work. And in that career, certification actually works. It's not a miracle or unexplainable.

> Would the certification require someone to take an official certification test for the framework used?

> And therefore we’re only allowed to use frameworks which have certification tests available?

When it's safety-critical, yes, absolutely. A service that handles sensitive PII, such as the one whose "engineers" should be prosecuted for this incident, is definitionally safety-critical.

If you're afraid in that world you'd be unable to work, maybe you deserve to be.

> They should be fined out of existence for such breaches and they would quickly change tune.

Looks like this is a great opportunity for an object lesson. Let’s see how it goes…

As far as certification stuff…

Civil engineering has had licensing forever. That’s because Bad Things Happen, when they make mistakes.

I do think that it would be a good idea to score/certify critical infrastructure stuff. That might involve certification of the people that make it, but it should certainly involve penalties for the people responsible. That might include the authors, but it should probably also include the folks that decide to use the bad code.

I know that ISO 9000 is an attempt to address this kind of thing. In my opinion, it’s kind of a mess. I’ve worked in ISO 9000 shops, and it’s not much fun. The thing you learn, pretty quickly, is how to end-run the process, as it’s so heavy, that it basically stops all forward progress. It doesn’t have to, but often does.

Mistakes get made. If you design carefully, these mistakes won’t cause real damage.

I just figured out that an app I wrote, that’s been out for two years, has an embarrassing bug (mea culpa). I’ll get it fixed today.

Because I’m pretty careful, it doesn’t affect stuff like user privacy. It just introduces performance overhead, in one operation, so the fix will mean that the app will suddenly speed up.

I’m not sure that certification would have solved it. My security mindset is why user privacy wasn’t affected, and that comes from experience.

> Good judgment comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgement.

> I think just putting it on the companies is enough. If the fines are serious and can put your company out of business

They don't care. It's either never enough to make them care, or the company can just bankrupt and you go do something else.

If you or your manager has the threat of jail in the back of their mind, it's no longer just someone else's money being lost, it's personal.

> If everyone knows that messing up security gets you in real trouble and the company loses real money

There's already huge fines on paper for this, but never ever are the fines enough. It's always factored in the "cost of doing business". Also it's still someone else's money, why would an engineer care?

Please show me a GDPR fine that hit hard enough to scare companies into not fucking up? Evidently here it was not enough for Fiverr.

Edit: Just to provide an example, Takata airbags have been recalled massively (if you don't know why, look it up) but the company is now bankrupted and who is footing the bill? Their customers.

You cannot impose a fine on them, as it's bankrupt (now, but it was always the plan). They deliberately sold dangerous airbags and now what can you do so it doesn't happen again? Fine them some more? or maybe throw a few execs in jail because they knew of the problem and continued as usual.