The blog post "The 'S' in MCP Stands for Security" details a security vulnerability discovered by the author in Microsoft's Cloud Partner Portal (MCP). The author found they could manipulate partner IDs in URLs to access sensitive information belonging to other partners, including financial data, customer lists, and internal documents. This vulnerability stemmed from the MCP lacking proper authorization checks after initial authentication, allowing users to view data they shouldn't have access to. The author reported the vulnerability to Microsoft, who acknowledged and subsequently patched the issue, emphasizing the importance of rigorous security testing even in seemingly secure enterprise platforms.
Accelerated career growth comes from seeking out high-growth environments, even if it means sacrificing comfort and stability. These environments offer a rapid accumulation of diverse experiences, increased responsibilities, and exposure to a wider range of challenges. This condensed timeframe for learning equates to years of experience gained in traditional settings. While demanding, embracing these opportunities allows individuals to level up their skills, expand their network, and achieve significant career progression much faster. This rapid growth often involves joining early-stage companies or taking on new roles in fast-moving sectors, requiring a proactive approach and a willingness to learn and adapt quickly.
HN commenters largely agree with the author's premise that intense, focused work on challenging projects can accelerate professional growth. Several share personal anecdotes echoing the author's experience, describing rapid skill acquisition through dedicated projects or periods of intense learning. Some caution against burnout and emphasize the importance of deliberate practice and mentorship alongside hard work. A few commenters note that this type of accelerated growth is more common in certain fields like software development, where rapid iteration and readily available feedback loops facilitate faster learning. There's also discussion about the role of luck and being in the right place at the right time, with some arguing that while hard work is essential, opportunity plays a significant role.
True seniority as a software engineer isn't just about technical prowess, but also navigating the complexities of existing systems. Working on a legacy project forces you to confront imperfect code, undocumented features, and the constraints of outdated technologies. This experience cultivates essential skills like debugging intricate problems, understanding system-wide implications of changes, making pragmatic decisions amidst technical debt, and collaborating with others who've inherited the system. These challenges, while frustrating, ultimately build a deeper understanding of software development's lifecycle and hone the judgment necessary for making informed, impactful contributions to any project, new or old. This experience is invaluable in shaping a well-rounded and truly senior engineer.
Hacker News users largely disagreed with the premise of the linked article. Several commenters argued that working on legacy code doesn't inherently make someone a senior engineer, pointing out that many junior developers are often assigned to maintain older projects. Instead, they suggested that seniority comes from a broader range of experience, including designing and building new systems, mentoring junior developers, and understanding the business context of their work. Some argued that the article conflated "seniority" with "experience" or "tenure." A few commenters did agree that legacy code experience is valuable, but emphasized it as just one aspect of becoming a senior engineer, not the defining factor. Several highlighted the important skills gained from grappling with legacy systems, such as debugging, refactoring, and understanding complex codebases.
Experiencing a layoff profoundly altered the author's perspective on work, shifting it from a source of identity and community to a purely transactional exchange. The emotional impact, including the loss of purpose and social connection, highlighted the precarious nature of employment and the importance of prioritizing personal well-being. This newfound awareness encouraged the author to diversify income streams, detach emotionally from any single job, and focus on building a more resilient and fulfilling life outside of the traditional workplace. The layoff, while initially traumatic, ultimately served as a catalyst for personal growth and a reassessment of values.
HN users largely agreed with the article's premise that layoffs drastically alter one's perspective on work. Several shared personal experiences of diminished loyalty and increased prioritization of work-life balance after being laid off. Some discussed the emotional toll and the feeling of betrayal, leading to a more transactional view of the employer-employee relationship. Others pointed out the positive aspects, such as the impetus to pursue personal projects or find more fulfilling work. A few commenters offered counterpoints, suggesting that company loyalty can still exist and that the impact of a layoff varies greatly depending on individual circumstances and the nature of the layoff. Some argued that the described shift in perspective is a healthy recalibration, recognizing the inherent instability of modern employment.
The IEEE offers a credentialing program designed to recognize and enhance professional development in various technical fields. These credentials, including certifications and certificates, validate expertise in areas like software development, systems engineering, and cybersecurity. The program aims to help individuals advance their careers by demonstrating competency, staying current with industry trends, and gaining a competitive edge. IEEE credentials are built upon rigorous standards, peer review, and continuing education requirements, ensuring quality and relevance in a rapidly evolving technological landscape. They offer individuals a way to showcase specialized knowledge and skills to potential employers and clients.
Hacker News users discussing the IEEE credentialing program express skepticism and concern about its value. Several commenters question whether the program offers any real benefits, particularly given its cost. Some suggest it might be more beneficial for engineers to focus on building a strong portfolio and gaining practical experience rather than pursuing this credential. The lack of employer recognition and the seemingly generic nature of the offered credentials are recurring criticisms. A few commenters mention the potential for the program to be useful in specific niche areas or for individuals earlier in their careers, but the overall sentiment leans towards viewing it as unnecessary and potentially even harmful to the IEEE's reputation.
Over 50 years in computing, the author reflects on key lessons learned. Technical brilliance isn't enough; clear communication, especially writing, is crucial for impact. Building diverse teams and valuing diverse perspectives leads to richer solutions. Mentorship is a two-way street, enriching both mentor and mentee. Finally, embracing change and continuous learning are essential for navigating the ever-evolving tech landscape, along with maintaining a sense of curiosity and playfulness in work.
HN commenters largely appreciated the author's reflections on his long career in computer science. Several highlighted the importance of his point about the cyclical nature of computer science, with older ideas and technologies often becoming relevant again. Some commenters shared their own anecdotes about witnessing this cycle firsthand, mentioning specific technologies like LISP, Smalltalk, and garbage collection. Others focused on the author's advice about the balance between specializing and maintaining broad knowledge, noting its applicability to various fields. A few also appreciated the humility and candidness of the author in acknowledging the role of luck in his success.
The blog post "The Missing Mentoring Pillar" argues that mentorship focuses too heavily on career advancement and technical skills, neglecting the crucial aspect of personal development. It proposes a third pillar of mentorship, alongside career and technical guidance, focused on helping mentees navigate the emotional and psychological challenges of their field. This includes addressing issues like imposter syndrome, handling criticism, building resilience, and managing stress. By incorporating this "personal" pillar, mentorship becomes more holistic, supporting individuals in developing not just their skills, but also their capacity to thrive in a demanding and often stressful environment. This ultimately leads to more well-rounded, resilient, and successful professionals.
HN commenters generally agree with the article's premise about the importance of explicit mentoring in open source, highlighting how difficult it can be to break into contributing. Some shared personal anecdotes of positive and negative mentoring experiences, emphasizing the impact a good mentor can have. Several suggested concrete ways to improve mentorship, such as structured programs, better documentation, and more welcoming communities. A few questioned the scalability of one-on-one mentoring and proposed alternatives like improved documentation and clearer contribution guidelines. One commenter pointed out the potential for abuse in mentor-mentee relationships, emphasizing the need for clear codes of conduct.
Summary of Comments ( 36 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43600192
Hacker News users generally agree with the author's premise that the Microsoft Certified Professional (MCP) certifications don't adequately address security. Several commenters share anecdotes about easily passing MCP exams without real-world security knowledge. Some suggest the certifications focus more on product features than practical skills, including security best practices. One commenter points out the irony of Microsoft emphasizing security in their products while their certifications seemingly lag behind. Others highlight the need for more practical, hands-on security training and certifications, suggesting alternative certifications like Offensive Security Certified Professional (OSCP) as more valuable for demonstrating security competency. A few users mention that while MCP might not be security-focused, other Microsoft certifications like Azure Security Engineer Associate directly address security.
The Hacker News post "The "S" in MCP Stands for Security," linking to an article about security issues related to Microsoft Certified Professional certifications, has generated a moderate discussion with several insightful comments.
Several commenters discuss the broader implications of certification programs. One commenter points out that certifications often focus on memorization rather than practical skills, arguing that this approach doesn't necessarily translate to real-world competence, especially in a field like security. They highlight the difference between knowing the definition of a security concept and being able to apply it effectively in a complex situation. This comment resonates with others who share similar skepticism about the value of certifications as a sole indicator of expertise.
Another thread discusses the specific vulnerabilities mentioned in the linked article, with some users expressing concern about the potential impact of these security flaws. One commenter questions the rigor of the certification process if such vulnerabilities exist, suggesting a need for more robust testing and validation.
Others delve into the ethical considerations of disclosing security vulnerabilities in certification exams. One commenter raises the dilemma of responsible disclosure, questioning the appropriate channels for reporting such issues and the potential repercussions for individuals who discover them. This sparks a brief discussion about the balance between public disclosure and responsible reporting to the relevant authorities.
Finally, a few commenters offer alternative perspectives on the value of certifications. One suggests that certifications can be a useful starting point for individuals entering the field, providing a structured learning path and a basic level of knowledge. Another argues that while certifications may not be a perfect measure of expertise, they can still serve as a valuable signaling mechanism for employers, helping them identify candidates with a certain level of foundational knowledge.
Overall, the comments reflect a nuanced perspective on the role and value of certifications in the security field, acknowledging both their limitations and potential benefits. The discussion highlights the importance of practical skills, ethical considerations, and the ongoing need for robust security practices.