North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: Compromised machines liable for damage?
- From: Owen DeLong
- Date: Thu Dec 29 08:23:30 2005
--On December 29, 2005 5:51:04 AM -0500 Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:20:51 PST, Owen DeLong said:
>> Denying patches doesn't tend to injure the trespassing user so much as
>> it injures the others that get attacked by his compromised machine.
>> I think that is why many manufacturers release security patches to
>> anyone openly, while restricting other upgrades to registered users.
> Color me cynical, but I thought the manufacturers did that because a
> security issue has the ability to convince non-customers that your
> product sucks, while other bugs and upgrades only convince the sheep that
> already bought the product that the product is getting Even
That could be a factor, but, I know first hand from the legal departments
of at least two software "manufacturers" that it was at least a factor
in the decision, and, they do have concerns about being liable for
damages caused by security flaws in their software.
If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.
Description: PGP signature