That's bad designs for you. Assume that just because it's widely visible, must mean it has exploits. (this is the only point on that list I'll call "that's bad logic" on).

▲

ASalazarMX 9 hours ago | parent [-]

Everything complex enough has exploits, you can't make exploits impossible with design, just less likely.

▲

teunispeters 7 hours ago | parent [-]

The point of engineering is measuring and confirming errors, and designing to mitigate them. Exploits are errors.

Complexity does not lead directly to exploits, letting errors be ignored does. At what level an error can be ignored - that's quality control. And one can tell poor quality software by how exploitable it is.

	▲	ASalazarMX 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Complexity does not lead directly to exploits Indirectly then? More complexity means more interacting parts, more complex interaction might hide flaws in ways it's hard to predict without looking at the big picture, which might be too big for a single person to picture (he). I don't advocate for oversimplified systems, the same way I don't advocate for overcomplicated systems. I advocate for finding an equilibrium.