[hellerbarde]

The architecture might have been state of the art and completely reasonable back in "ye olden days". The fact remains that it's not appropriate for 2014.

If the reasons for this behemoth are compatibility with 50 years old processes, then these processes have to be modernized so this software can be scrapped. (or fixed, either way a huge project)

[roel_v]

" then these processes have to be modernized"

How so? So people can use Q's and Z's in their passwords? What would your business case look like? "Hey everybody let's spend $500 million so people can use arbitrary passwords, because [entropy], never mind most people use the name of their cat anyway?"

[gpcz]

As ridiculous as that pitch might sound, it makes the implied security-money tradeoff directly visible to management and causes them to make a formal decision.

[rnovak]

How so? if it's been used for 60 years, how many records do you think would be compromised if someone gained access to the system? Millions? Billions? Sounds like a good reason to 'modernize' to me.

The target breach would be nothing compared to the breach of a system in use for 60 years.

[wakeless]

But my cat's name is quizzical.

[DonHopkins]

If their computer system is from the 1950's and they can't modernize it, why don't they also allow smoking and box cutters on the plane, and dress their stewardesses up all sexy?

[imjustsaying]

You're missing out. Try KoreanAir.