It seems to me that we are making a lot of fuss about something that we basically feel the same about. If you take the time to calm down and read the comments as well as the article you might see this too.
Now, you were the one that brought up the topics of sloppy programming and "security through obscurity", taking this discussion explicitly to the realm of the real world, where the perfect solution does not exist. You observed that database features are no excuse for bad programming, while I am of the opinion that they should not be an excuse.
In the real world resources are limited. At some point a decision will have to be made: is it good enough? Since security means nothing in the laboratory, and everything in the real world, this is a very important observation. This is also why I mention writing perfect code: it cannot be done, and the only way to avoid having to make suboptimal decisions is to remove the necessity of making those decisions. This is a classic trade-off between security and functionality.
Instead of having to protect features one does not need, it is better to not have them available in the first place. That of course leaves more resources available to get the actual job done: defining the correct interfaces to the functionality you want to provide or use and protecting those interfaces properly.
On the other hand, no database can provide protection from gaping security holes in external applications.
This is the same problem. Do take some time to think about it.
Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds