Human error or edge case?
In the realm of software development, even the most meticulous testing processes cannot guarantee a flawless outcome. Microsoft, much like its peers in the industry, invests significant resources into patch testing prior to release. However, as Tyler Reguly, associate director of security R&D at Fortra, articulates, the complexity of modern software makes it nearly impossible to account for every potential scenario. “It’s impossible to test every edge case and scenario,” he noted in a recent communication. “At some point, testing at a large scale requires human intervention—and humans are fallible.”
Reguly raises an important question that often lingers in the wake of a vendor needing to rectify a prior fix: Was the issue a result of human oversight, or did it stem from an edge case that was considered improbable? Unfortunately, the transparency of Root Cause Analysis (RCA) reports remains limited, with few vendors willing to disclose their findings. This leaves stakeholders with little more than a swift resolution and a shared hope that similar issues will be avoided in the future.
When human error is identified as the culprit, rectifying the situation may necessitate changes in processes or policies. Conversely, edge cases can arise from a myriad of factors, particularly in environments where hardware and virtualization intersect. Reguly emphasizes the inherent unpredictability of such systems, stating, “When we talk about hardware and virtualization on top of hardware, we’re talking about a lot of things that can go wrong.” He concludes with a sobering reminder: while it is reasonable to expect vendors to strive for comprehensive coverage, it is equally important to acknowledge the limitations of such expectations in a complex technological landscape.
