Timeline for Do we want to humor "how do I intentionally provide an insecure service" questions?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 3, 2017 at 20:50 | comment | added | Andrew B | If the question is appropriately prefaced so as to not be an XY problem (in this case, the goal being to avoid discussing X at all), perhaps. We definitely don't want to get into the business of aiding people who just want to do the low effort thing with no respect for consequences, which is our primary search engine audience. | |
| Jan 3, 2017 at 20:29 | comment | added | shodanshok | I partially agree with your point of view, however (and unfortunately) I saw many times bad tech decisions taken by someout with very questionable tech skills. If a sysadmin is charged to somewhat ameliorate the situation, the SF community can/should support it. | |
| Jan 3, 2017 at 20:09 | comment | added | Andrew B | I don't find myself agreeing with "requirements are fixed by peoples with limited IT understanding" in this instance. Even if we buy into that, answers about mitigating the risk of improperly exposed software are snapshots in time. As a DNS example, PRS attacks didn't even exist until fairly recently. You end up with several answers that partially cover the scope of the problem ("the answer" does not exist), none of which age well with time. Both are the same reasons why shopping questions are off topic. | |
| Jan 3, 2017 at 19:53 | history | answered | shodanshok | CC BY-SA 3.0 |