On 15/04/14 02:03, Stan Hoeppner wrote: >> I certainly wouldn't jump to conclusions that they're a bank therefore >> > they use IBM mainframes therefore they don't use OpenSSL therefore >> > they're invulnerable, > I jumped to no conclusion. Do you see the word "bank" in my original > statement below? No, you see "financial institutions".
Sorry. I'll add the logical step: "... they're a bank therefore they're a financial institution therefore they use IBM mainframes ..." > >> > and I wish that they'd tell us either way. > Yes, that would be nice. But outside of technical geeks, none of their > customers are paying attention. Of course they're not paying attention. Nobody's telling them about it. The non-technical people I've spoken to have generally not heard of it. Maybe they haven't heard of it either: that's one of the things that concerns me. > And, more importantly, as a rule > chiseled in granite, financial institutions, especially banks, never > admit to doing anything wrong, because it opens them up to liability, > lawsuits, thus monetary loss. The lawyers have sewn the executives lips > shut on this while they spend days, if not weeks to a month figuring out > how to best handle "needed" disclosure without losing [m|b]illions. That may be the problem, sure. Even though I wouldn't consider it them doing something wrong, I can see that some would, and it's an opportunity for lawyers to make money. Richard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/534c722e.9080...@walnut.gen.nz
