Goertzel, Karen [USA] wrote: > We teach toddlers from the time they can walk that they shouldn't > play in traffic. A year or two later, we teach them to look both ways > before crossing the street. Even later - usually when they're > approaching their teens, and can deal with "grim reality", we give > examples that illustrate exactly WHY they needed to know those > things. > Actually, I'm not teaching my 1 yo toddler much of anything about traffic right now. I'm more playing guardian when she runs around the house and making sure she doesn't get into situations for which she would be completely and totally unprepared (and in serious danger). She lacks the language skills to even marginally understand basic concepts like "street" let alone "don't play in the street." I think this rather proves my point that secure coding is not itself a fundamental concept, but rather an intermediate-to-advanced concept. Matt Bishop's comments are great, but they've also been applied in a context of higher ed., and recognize the limits of student understanding at different phases of development.
-ben > But that doesn't mean we wait until the kids are 11 or 12 to tell > them shouldn't play in traffic. > > There has to be some way to start introducing the idea even to the > rawest of raw beginning programming students that "good" is much more > desirable than "expedient", and then to introduce the various > properties that collectively constitute "good" - including security. > > Karen Mercedes Goertzel, CISSP Associate 703.698.7454 > [email protected] ________________________________________ From: > Andy Steingruebl [[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 > 1:14 PM To: Goertzel, Karen [USA] Cc: Benjamin Tomhave; > [email protected] Subject: Re: [SC-L] Where Does Secure Coding > Belong In the Curriculum? > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 7:26 AM, Goertzel, Karen > [USA]<[email protected]> wrote: >> For consistency's sake, I hope you agree that if security is an >> intermediate-to-advanced concept in software development, then all >> the other "-ilities" ("goodness" properties, if you will), such as >> quality, reliability, usability, safety, etc. that go beyond "just >> get the bloody thing to work" are also intermediate-to-advanced >> concepts. >> >> In other words, teach the "goodness" properties to developers only >> after they've inculcated all the bad habits they possibly can, and >> then, when they are out in the marketplace and never again >> incentivised to actually unlearn those bad habits, TRY desperately >> to change their minds using nothing but F.U.D. and various other >> psychological means of dubious effectiveness. > > Seriously? We're going to teach kids in 5th grade who are just > learning what an algorithm is how to protect against malicious > inputs, how to make their application fast, handle all exception > conditions, etc? > > ... > -- Benjamin Tomhave, MS, CISSP [email protected] Blog: http://www.secureconsulting.net/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/falconsview Photos: http://photos.secureconsulting.net/ Web: http://falcon.secureconsulting.net/ LI: http://www.linkedin.com/in/btomhave [ Random Quote: ] "That which has always been accepted by everyone, everywhere, is almost certain to be false." Paul Valery _______________________________________________ Secure Coding mailing list (SC-L) [email protected] List information, subscriptions, etc - http://krvw.com/mailman/listinfo/sc-l List charter available at - http://www.securecoding.org/list/charter.php SC-L is hosted and moderated by KRvW Associates, LLC (http://www.KRvW.com) as a free, non-commercial service to the software security community. _______________________________________________
