Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Golden Eagle
You feed them patches, and catch anyone who cracks it.

The problem with that is you inherently trust the vendor. Several companies have been known to sit on information that shows their product to have been cracked, and until the information went public, they did nothing about it.

Part of releasing the vulnerability information is to force the hand of the vendor to act. I agree that the vendor should be notified first. However, if nothing is done about it, then the information should be released publicly to force their action.

38 posted on 08/02/2006 9:44:17 AM PDT by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]


To: ShadowAce
I agree that the vendor should be notified first.

Then we agree. I think 6 months is sufficient time for vendors to respond. After that only official groups such as CERT should be notified, and anything else considered criminally negligent. But keep in mind this puts you at odds with open source leaders like Linus Torvalds who believe in what they call "full disclosure", meaning let the hackers and everyone know asap.

39 posted on 08/02/2006 10:11:11 AM PDT by Golden Eagle (Buy American. While you still can.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson