On Feb 13, 2008 3:28 PM, JC Dill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
JC,
Nice conjecture.
> I'm really surprised that ISPs haven't banded together to sue Microsoft
> for negligently selling and distributing an insecure OS that is an
> Attractive Nuisance - causing the ISPs (who don't own the OS infected
Andre Gironda wrote:
It's our fault for not pushing AV on your customers, and it's the AV's
fault for not providing audit data to us, and it's the software
vendors' fault for causing us to have to recommend AV and for AV to
exist. The liability should land on the software vendors.
I'm really
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- -- "Andre Gironda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[lots of good stuff elided]
>It's our fault for not pushing AV on your customers, and it's the AV's
>fault for not providing audit data to us, and it's the software
>vendors' fault for causing us to ha
On Feb 12, 2008 12:17 PM, Owen DeLong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Considering that the US is also consistently among the top three sources
> of desirable content, I'm not sure that this ranking necessarily proves
> much of anything, but, I do agree that ISPs could do a better job of
> shutting do
On Feb 12, 2008 3:27 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not necessarily - it's unclear they mean "the vuln innately can't be fixed
> by a mere patch, because it's a social engineering issue", or "the vuln can't
> be fixed because the vendor has not yet shipped a patch for some reason".
... or the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (removed cc)
I was actually targeting this suggestion to those who
currently distribute Internet Explorer kits. So it was
more of a suggestion to not distribute the browser that
is most vulnerable. And if you make installation of
Firefox a requirement to come out of qu
6 matches
Mail list logo
