>>55198322
that's why you test things in a closed environment before deploying it for real use

>>55198322
pretty easy senpai tbqh

>>55198322
Stupid question, just test the shit out of it, and if it's something that complex like you probably have a very long time to work with it. You may even have years to work out all the bugs. (Like the F-35 for example.)

>>55198322
More effort, not hard work though

mainly it's writing a bunch of conditionals and having checks and shit in place. Depends on the language in question - you can totally write things with C# safer and easier than C\C++.

But i mean you can have safety in C\C++ if you're not an idiot, use modern code, and have your checks and conditions in place

The biggest reason those bugs happen is lack of foresight.

>Well this is how you get it to work
>done

>what if <thing happens>?
>Oh don't worry it won't
>So the code's protected from it?
>no that will never happen so...
><thing happens>
>fuck

There's a lot of "Okay it works" out there, depending on the software, you may find hacking is possible by just doing random testing behavioral things.

>what happens if you put a SQL Wildcard here
>ohshitnigger.jpg

Or something.

Not to mention, things like that have must be in compliance with authorities on security for your field.

Like PCI-DSS for Money shit, IDK if health has one, i never worked in that field.

Buy Ethereum