RE: [Full-Disclosure] Symantec wants to criminalize security info sharing

From: Bruce Ediger (eballen1_at_qwest.net)
Date: 09/20/03

  • Next message: Justin: "Re: [Full-Disclosure] idea" 
    To: full-disclosure@lists.netsys.com
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 15:51:55 -0600 (MDT)

    On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, Jonathan A. Zdziarski wrote:

    > Has anyone called a boycott of Symantec lately?

    No, but we should, for two specific reasons:

    1. They support spammers. How many years have you been getting
    the spams for "Really Cheap Norton Systemworks" packages? And
    how many complaints have you made to spamwatch@symantec.com?
    And how much in the way of results have you seen?

    I think I've gotten regularly scheduled spams from at least 3 spam
    operations over the last 3 years, all advertising cheap Systemworks.

    Clearly, Symantec is funding this spamming. And don't tell me that
    they won a suit against a spammer - why did I get two copies of the spam
    today alone?

    2. They're an anti-virus firm, but the best they can offer is "update
    your virus signature files regularly", even though that's about as effective
    as shouting "U SUKK!!!!" at the viruses, based on how many copies of Sobig.f
    and Swen I've gotten.

    At least they could admit that trying to protect Windows/MSFT products is
    pretty hopeless, and encourage people to switch to more functional, yet
    free products like Pine, or mailx or whatever Mac OS X uses to read email.
    None of them have ever had a macro virus, despite many, many buffer overflows
    and other disgusting security problems.

    _______________________________________________
    Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
    Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html

  • Next message: Justin: "Re: [Full-Disclosure] idea"