Haha, Lai makes a good point. 'Auto-provisioning security inspection' does sound like some buzzword-compliant nonsense. But hey, maybe the exam writers are trying to trip us up with that one. I'd stick with the tried-and-true methods - code reviews and OWASP training. Can't go wrong there.
Hmm, I'm not so sure about option B. 'Auto-provisioning security inspection' - what does that even mean? Sounds like some made-up consultant jargon to me. I'd much rather see a good old-fashioned code review, and make sure the team is trained on OWASP principles. Keep it simple, you know?
I agree with Gayla. Automated code reviews and training the team on secure software development are so important. You can't just rely on penetration testing at the end - you need to build security in from the start. I also think option B, 'Implement auto-provisioning security inspection for the code,' is a good one. Catching security issues early in the pipeline is key.
This is a great question that really gets at the heart of securing the software development lifecycle, especially for an IoT project where security is critical. I think the two best options here are A) Perform automated code reviews prior to deployment and E) Train members of the team in a secure software development lifecycle methodology such as OWASP.
upvoted 0 times
...
Log in to Pass4Success
Sign in:
Report Comment
Is the comment made by USERNAME spam or abusive?
Commenting
In order to participate in the comments you need to be logged-in.
You can sign-up or
login
Lorrine
10 months agoRosendo
10 months agoJulieta
10 months agoLorrine
10 months agoRosendo
10 months agoJulieta
11 months agoCarylon
11 months agoDestiny
12 months agoSusy
12 months agoCarylon
1 years agoLaurel
1 years agoWeldon
1 years agoEvette
1 years agoLakeesha
1 years agoSelma
1 years agoBrandee
1 years agoLai
1 years agoLeonora
1 years agoGayla
1 years ago