RE: Networking Pearl Harbor in the Making

Excerpt from "Logic 101 -- Introductory Logical Reasoning": "Can" does not mean the same thing as "will". And, thus, the fact that one vendor has an across-the-board bug does _not_ mean that the same situation exists at =all= vendors.. The bug in multiple versions ov $vendor's code was directly attributable to those 'multiple versions' all being derived (at different points in time, and/or for different deployment niches) from the same primary 'code base'. Note: "code base", *singular*. The problem existed in the core code, so, naturally, it was present in all the varients of that *single* core.
Vendor diversity does *not* _guarantee_ diversity in code-base. You have to *explicitly* spec/check/test for code-base diversity, to ensure that you have code-base diversity. It is _possible_ to get code-base diversity with multiple purchases from a single manufacturer/vendor. It is _possible_ to have a single common code-base among purchases from disparate manufacturers/vendors. The "probability" of getting things with different code-bases -- *without* *actually*checking*for*it* -- is higher if you purchase from multiple manufacturers/vendors, rather than from a single one. "Higher probability" != "guaranteed" Hence the need to explicitly check, if said diversity is a requirement.
participants (1)
-
Robert Bonomi