RE: Re[2]: [Full-Disclosure] pissed off

From: Melvyn Sopacua (msopacua_at_idg.nl)
Date: 04/28/03

  • Next message: fxr_at_hushmail.com: "Re: Re[2]: [Full-Disclosure] pissed off" 
    To: Steve Wray <steve.wray@paradise.net.nz>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 00:22:40 +0200 (CEST)

    On Mon, 28 Apr 2003, Steve Wray wrote:

    SW>>> And the fact that software companies can get away with
    SW>>> claiming to have no liability for the fitness of their products
    SW>>> means that they can continue to produce and sell and make millions
    SW>>> out of their defective products.

    So this only applies to sold software? You mean, if a defective program,
    burns my CPU's it didn't cost me anything?
    Or with respect to Open Source (or even a paid source license):
    the fact that the source is available to the end-user, implies the
    end-user 'could have known' that this would happen?

    SW>>> From the Unix Haters Handbook;
    SW>>>
    SW>>> <quote>
    SW>>> Real standards ... are for physical objects like steel beams: they let
    SW>>> designers order a part and incorporate it into their design with
    SW>>> foreknowledge of how it will perform under real-world conditions.

    Letting users(tm) use software takes away any chances of accurately
    assessing real-world conditions.

    SW>>> "If a beam fails in service, then the builder's lawyers call the beam
    SW>>> maker's lawyers to discuss things like compensatory and punitive
    SW>>> damages."
    SW>>> Apparently, the threat of liability keeps most companies honest; those
    SW>>> who aren't honest presumably get shut down soon enough.
    SW>>> <end quote>
    SW>>>
    SW>>> Somehow an entire industry has arisen with no concept of liability
    SW>>> and, therefore, with no concept of honesty.

    To much of a longjmp(). The threat of liability, founded upon a belief
    that mankind will do the right thing, will lead to honesty.
    Threat of liability, founded upon the proven fact, that mankind is
    capable of *not* doing the right thing, leads to cover-ups and enhanced
    methods of cost/gain analysis (200 dead people * 1,5mln a pop = 300mln,
    while redesigning a defective car and recollecting already produced, costs
    400mln).

    Anyway - to make this on topic again:
    what is copyrightable about a vulnerability report and why should
    violation of that copyright constitute legal action and possible
    financial (or criminal?) repercusions? 

    -- 
With kind regards,
Melvyn Sopacua
<?php include("not_reflecting_employers_views.txt"); ?>
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
  • Next message: fxr_at_hushmail.com: "Re: Re[2]: [Full-Disclosure] pissed off"

    Relevant Pages

    • RE: Re[2]: [Full-Disclosure] pissed off
      ... And the fact that software companies can get away with ... the threat of liability keeps most companies honest; ... > the vulnerabilities belong to the licensee of the ...
      (Full-Disclosure)
    • Re: Commercial Copy Protection SDK?
      ... >>keep the honest people honest. ... held in a licence key file. ... A crack can circumvent this, ... spanners into the works and work out your liability. ...
      (comp.security.misc)
    • Re: Commercial Copy Protection SDK?
      ... >>keep the honest people honest. ... held in a licence key file. ... A crack can circumvent this, ... spanners into the works and work out your liability. ...
      (comp.security.misc)
    • Re: Vaccine taken off the mkt. because of poor sales-HUH?
      ... just the threat of a large amount of litigation. ... I'm not sure I understand this one very well, wouldn't liability ... The cost of correcting the defect per ...
      (sci.med.diseases.lyme)
    • Re: 1. e4 c5 2. c3 d5
      ... is the threat for and by black? ... equality. ... Black's queen can become a liability when White later plays ... White has to be careful about Black's lead in development and centrally ...
      (rec.games.chess.analysis)