Re: InfoSec sleuths beware ...

["Gregory A. Gilliss" <ggilliss () netpublishing com>]

Did I miss the thread or has no one yet postulated that the Microsoft
source code subset was leaked intentionally in order to afford M$ the 
free services of hundreds or thousands of security researchers auditing
their code for them?

It is a known fact that Windows 2000 and XP are soon to be depreciated
in favor of the next generation OS. W2K and WXP will be supported for 
another year or so afterwards. The new component probably will contain
some of the current code set, so why not risk a couple of serious exploits
(like M$ cares) in favor of getting your code certified by the community 
for free?

G

On or about 2004.02.18 13:06:44 +0000, Blue Boar (BlueBoar () thievco com) said:

> There are clear, admitted cases of reverse engineering by vulnerabiity
> researchers, which are prohibited by EULA, and which MS has so far
> declined to pursue.  Why should this be different?  MS afraid the EULA
> restrictions wouldn't hold up?

-- 
Gregory A. Gilliss, CISSP                              E-mail: greg () gilliss com
Computer Security                             WWW: http://www.gilliss.com/greg/
PGP Key fingerprint 2F 0B 70 AE 5F 8E 71 7A 2D 86 52 BA B7 83 D9 B4 14 0E 8C A3

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html