During an imminent public release, my recommendation to fix a SQL injection flaw was ignored. I demonstrated the risk by intentionally taking down the near-production database, prompting immediate fixes.
I have worked in environments where addressing security vulnerabilities demanded quick, decisive action. However, based on my experience, intentionally shutting down a near-production database can have unpredictable consequences that may disrupt operations or lead to data inconsistencies. A more conservative approach involves creating a controlled testing scenario that accurately simulates the production environment. This approach typically provides clear evidence of the vulnerability without compromising data integrity, allowing for a safer and more effective resolution through thorough risk assessments and targeted remediation.
hey, in my experince takin down near prod is kinda risky, bu t sometimes it’s the wakeup call needed. i get the urgency for a fix, but next time, maybe try a bit more safe sim testin even if its not as showy.
hey, its a bold move. i wonder how it shifted the mindset towards safer testing among your team? did the takedown spur any changes to security procedures? curious to hear more though