Re: [fw-wiz] @Stake CTO fired for Microsoft comments
From: Mark Teicher (mht3_at_earthlink.net)
To: Mike Hoskins <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 11:37:03 -0600
@Stake VC and Executive Management should look at the talent they had or
still have on board. Dan Geer has been the industry a lot longer than most
people on the list, and has been on the board of Usenix for many many
years. @Stake needs industry recognized people to stay in the market. Who
is left @Stake that can still make a difference in the industry. Some
consulting companies use the term "Rock Star". Those companies leverage
the so-called "Rock Star" people to gain industry recognition. @Stake was
founded with the L0pht group to provide them with the industry's best and
brightest. Dan Geer was their technical leader, the consultants that
@Stake employs respected him not only as leader but a person who was well
known in the industry. Without him, I predict that @Stake will not survive
the next year without being acquired or merging with another consulting
company. The VC want their investment to succeed and not fail. If one
examined @Stake's web page over the last three years, senior management has
changed dramatically from the days that @Stake opened their doors.
I hope @Stake re-considers their position and actually backs Dan Geer on
his statements regarding Microsoft.
Microsoft may dominate the market and they need to recognize their
operating system and applications they sell have serious security flaws.
At 05:11 PM 9/26/2003, Mike Hoskins wrote:
>From: Paul Robertson <email@example.com>
>On Fri, 26 Sep 2003, Joseph S D Yao wrote:
> >> Dan's never been afraid to tell the truth. That @Stake fired him for
> >> telling the truth, and such a well-known truth, says more about
> >> @Stake's lack of integrity and love of MS $$$ than it does about Dan.
> >I don't know Dan, so I can't comment on that part.
> >@Stake is in some ways a competitor to TruSecure, so I'll try to avoid
> >commenting on that part too.
>you show wisdom beyond your years. not that i know how old you are, but
>many would not have been so correct. thanks.
> > I think it's a damn shame that companies want the best of both worlds.
> > Much worse than knee jerk vendor reaction to criticism is knee jerk
> > employer reaction to criticism of a third party. I don't think
> > I'd want to work in that sort of environment.
>precisely! and here's the thing (or at least one of them) -- the report
>clearly stated that the opinions were those of the individuals. it did
>not say this was @stake's stance, or any other employer's. the only place
>the employers were mentioned were in the individual's titles (and, i'm
>guessing, they may not have even decided on that).
>the point is, people told the truth and even took precautions to make sure
>the truth was NOT misinterpreted as the opinion of their employers. yet,
>some employers overreacted, showing quite obviously who their bed partners
> > Homogenous networks are bad, and it's worse when your protection
>spot on, as usual. but we're all just agreeing here. people seemed to
>think having tiered firewalls back in the dot-bomb days was "just
>something you do when you have loads of VC cash" -- not. it's just one
>example of taking network security as seriously as it deserves... at
>least for (truly) mission critical sites. blind vendor loyalty rarely
>pays in our world. well, unless it's a check from M$. ("a check from M$"
>is essentially what's been offered to numerous government agencies to
>maintain loyalty to M$ product lines.)
>RFCs have said what Dan and his associates said in this report for years.
>M$ quietly ignored those reccomendations, made by some of the most
>upstanding members of the Internet community. it comes as no surprise
>to me that M$ and the vendors they own are still doing the same today.
>firewall-wizards mailing list
firewall-wizards mailing list