The CrowdStrike incident got me thinking about the potential hidden dangers of maintaining backward compatibility. Throughout its evolution, Microsoft Windows has maintained backward compatibility with older software, allowing users to run applications designed for previous versions. This feature has been both technically impressive and useful. However, this commitment to backward compatibility also comes with costs, including increased system complexity and potential security vulnerabilities.
The principle of backward compatibility may give rise to the accumulation of what might be called “protocol debt.” What helps ensure a consistent experience across different generations of technology can also lead to the persistence of outdated methods, structures, or practices. Protocol debt refers to the accumulated inefficiencies, vulnerabilities, and limitations that arise when protocols remain unchanged despite evolving contexts and requirements. It extends beyond software development, where the term ‘technical debt’ originated, to encompass both technical protocols and protocols in human systems.
In essence, protocol debt is the hidden cost of maintaining compatibility with the past, often at the expense of optimal current performance or future adaptability. It represents the growing gap between established protocols and the evolving needs of the systems they govern, manifesting as decreased effectiveness, increased risks, or missed opportunities for innovation.
The RADIUS protocol, developed in 1991 for dial-up internet access and still widely used in modern network authentication, further illustrates the double-edged nature of backward compatibility. Its continued reliance on MD5, a hash function known to be vulnerable since 2004, shows how prioritizing compatibility can perpetuate security flaws and operational inefficiencies.
In human systems, the drive to maintain compatibility with established practices can lead to similar accumulations of protocol debt. This debt represents the growing gap between current practices and evolving needs, often resulting in decreased effectiveness and increased risks over time.
In education, teaching methods that focus on standardized testing and rote memorization could be considered protocol debt. This backward compatibility with outdated educational norms creates debt in the form of students ill-equipped for a modern job market and economy that values critical thinking, creativity, and adaptability.
Similarly, in healthcare, compensating providers for individual services rather than overall patient outcomes could be considered a form of backward compatibility with traditional healthcare economics. This outdated protocol accumulates debt through escalating costs and suboptimal patient outcomes, particularly in managing chronic diseases and preventative care.
Recognizing protocol debt as a consequence of maintaining backward compatibility may be useful in terms of improving protocol literacy. Strategies for addressing protocol debt are beyond the scope of this post. However, I have an inkling that ‘prefigurative protocols’ might offer a tentative path forward. If we could recognize and better understand what can be gained from the deliberate use of prefigurative protocols, we may be better equipped to navigate the tension between continuity and adaptation.