Full Disclosure mailing list archives
Re: GROUP CONSIDERING SUIT AGAINST MICROSOFT OVER SLAMMER VIRUS
From: Joerg Mayer <jmayer () loplof de>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 04:00:18 +0100
On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 03:06:27AM +0100, Juraj Bednar wrote:
he meant, that setting the liability precedent is quite important thing. if someone sues microsoft over security flaw and wins (even in korea), anyone can sue *insert your favourite os vendor name here* and win too. every software has bugs, making vendors liable is not a trivial thing. making vendors liable for not providing security fixes in timely manner is another thing (and maybe better).
What may be interesting here is that you a) could "acidentally" install the
vulnerable component by doing a full install of one fo the bigger office
packets - so you really aren't aware that you are running the vulnerable
software on your workstation and b) the windows update button doesn't
list/provide the needed patch.
Ciao
Jörg
--
Joerg Mayer <jmayer () loplof de>
I found out that "pro" means "instead of" (as in proconsul). Now I know
what proactive means.
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Current thread:
- GROUP CONSIDERING SUIT AGAINST MICROSOFT OVER SLAMMER VIRUS Richard M. Smith (Feb 03)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: GROUP CONSIDERING SUIT AGAINST MICROSOFT OVER SLAMMER VIRUS Schmehl, Paul L (Feb 03)
- Re: GROUP CONSIDERING SUIT AGAINST MICROSOFT OVER SLAMMER VIRUS Juraj Bednar (Feb 03)
- Re: GROUP CONSIDERING SUIT AGAINST MICROSOFT OVER SLAMMER VIRUS Joerg Mayer (Feb 03)
- Re: GROUP CONSIDERING SUIT AGAINST MICROSOFT OVER SLAMMER VIRUS Juraj Bednar (Feb 03)
