Compromised machines liable for damage?

Thu Dec 29 13:20:41 UTC 2005

--On December 29, 2005 5:51:04 AM -0500 Valdis.Kletnieks at 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
> Better!(tm).....

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.

Owen

-- 
If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20051229/7ae9fead/attachment.sig>