Forwarded from: Richard Forno <firstname.lastname@example.org> To do so would admit responsibility for the problems plaguing the Internet from Microsoft products. They could never do that - not only would that go against years of carefully-crafted corporate branding and marketing, but probably open themselves up to years of product negligence lawsuits if they actually admitted such. $100M on Trustworthy Computing? Too little, too late. And besides, what does "100M invested..." actually mean? Did that all go in-house, or did that go for external research, product acquisitions, etc. on stuff that's related to security? The way it sounds, you think that $100M was spent on programmers, and stuff all within MS, which I find very, very hard to believe. Given MS track record, "investing in security" could mean full-page ads in magazines saying Windblows eXPloitable is a secure OS.....eg, spin control for security. Joking aside, I find it very hard to believe much of anything Redmond tells the public. rick infowarrior.org > Forwarded from: Joe Klein <email@example.com> > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > I think it would have saved Microsoft Stock Holders and the company > a lot of money if they would have designed security into the > operating system from the beginning. I remember a quote from my > college professor that 'for every $1 spent on planning, it will take > $10 to 'fix' in the development phase and $100 to fix if it goes > into production'. So I guess someone at Microsoft needs to answer up > to why the 1 million dollars was not spent on the beginning of their > software development process, instead of costing the Stock Holder > $99 Million at this juncture. > > Joe Klein - ISN is currently hosted by Attrition.org To unsubscribe email firstname.lastname@example.org with 'unsubscribe isn' in the BODY of the mail.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jul 23 2002 - 02:39:45 PDT