Unless you code doesn't speak to a network or any untrusted user. But people are making software that fits this criteria less and less often.
replyThe need for security update is largely due to poor development practices where safe and unsafe code is mixed together, lots of dependencies with unclear provenance and quality, etc.
replyWe had a recipe for a much stabler stack decades ago: separate runtime (might need to be patched regularly) from a high-level business logic (never needs to be patched if done properly).
E.g. old way of developing web front-end was like that: you code directly in JS. It never needs to be patched, only browser needs to be patched.
Same thing with Excel/VBA, etc.
But new devs don't know any of that, they just want to use latest "framework" which pre-installs whole bunch of vulns. And if there's a patch you need to rebuild. Constant churn just to satisfy the trend
Or in the past code just sat unpatched via obscurity because fewer people were looking. After all there are plenty of exploits from injection to CSS that we have fixed or migrated away from for code from the far past
replySeparating the runtime from the business logic doesn't really work because the business logic has the authority to do anything it has the authority to do. It's the https://xkcd.com/1200/ problem all over again.
replySome things just don’t have security issues found regularly
reply