Meritt James wrote: > > News flash: You and your kin are not the entire world. > > Wouldn't you like M$ to pay attention to those laws? Where do you think > the vulnerabilities come from? Laws aren't solely for Microsoft. Everyone else would be responsible for bugs in their code, too. Imagine someone is sued because his shareware ftp server has a buffer overflow. I bet Microsoft would love to run their competition's software on some of their boxen just to sue them as soon as a bug is found. > > Markus Kern wrote: > > > > Meritt James wrote: > > > > > > THAT is an informative statement! If a bit of consideration for the law > > > was made, there would be many fewer vulnerabilities in the first place. > > > > How would consideration for the law reduce _vulnerabilities_? > > > > I have to agree with Michael Rudel. > > When we're discussing the ethics/morals of something current laws are > > irrelevant. > > Laws are deduced from the outcome of such discussions (or that's the way > > I think it should be). > > So why are YOU discussing laws, followed by a statement that what you > wrote is irelevant? My question was related to your statement that laws would reduce vulnerabilities. The rest to Michael Rudel's post. Two different topics. regards, Markus Kern > > > > But thanks for the job security! > > > > > > "Michael R. Rudel" wrote: > > > > > > [snip] > > > > > > > It is illegal under current law, but > > > > that doesn't mean jack to me. > > > > > > [snip] > > -- > James W. Meritt, CISSP, CISA > Booz, Allen & Hamilton > phone: (410) 684-6566
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Sep 07 2001 - 12:25:11 PDT