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
Received on Sep 07 2001
Intro
