August 28, 2019 at 12:00 am
Comments posted to this topic are about the item Protecting Code
August 28, 2019 at 11:50 am
I'm glad you mentioned either not using GitHub/Bitbucket/etc., or using private repos on this services for companies authored software.
Rod
August 28, 2019 at 1:09 pm
I'm glad you mentioned either not using GitHub/Bitbucket/etc., or using private repos on this services for companies authored software.
We use Atlassian hosted Bitbucket - locked away behind encrypted repositories and multi-factor authentication of course.
"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Instead, seek what they sought." - Matsuo Basho
September 5, 2019 at 9:38 pm
One of my many gripes is the thoroughly lazy vendors who write their installation processes to use only the SA account and won't change it regardless of how bad the practice is.
Then you have the section of the business that says we have to give them the access because they don't want to upset the vendor, ie. the people being PAID to provide a service that is substandard at best.
A lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine.
September 11, 2019 at 2:55 pm
That certainly needs some pressure from users to stop the practice
September 12, 2019 at 4:21 am
Yes, definitely a practice that should not continue but it is something that I have seen continuously since getting into SQL Server (from DB2) back in about 2003.
It is not something that is going to change while businesses refuse to put conditions on the vendors to provide services in a timely fashion and in coordination with good coding practices.
I still see applications coming out with a phone number field defined as VARCHAR(255). No joke.
A lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine.
Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply