full-disclosure - Re: Windows' future (reprise)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 20:59:54 +0100
From: "lsi" <stuart@...erdelix.net>
To: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: Windows' future (reprise)

On 17 May 2010 at 18:08, Thor (Hammer of God) wrote:

> >Is my business at risk, if I
> >say the wrong thing, and my customers go out of business because
> >their hardware/software combination is no longer viable?

> In business, you are always exposed to some level of risk when you
> charge for professional services.  That's why you carry various
> business insurance

No, I'm not worried about being sued, I'm worried about my revenue 
streams disappearing.

> However, when you make public posts to a mailing list that is
> replicated worldwide about how you are consulting for a business that
> purchased a $24,000 .net application (or whatever it was) but then go
> on to say how you know absolutely nothing about .net, I do think you
> are opening yourself up for legal action

Not at all - my customer is fully aware that I know nothing about 
their software.  They got sick of me giving them my disclaimer.  They 
are happy for me to work on it because otherwise, they need to pay a 
large amount in annual support fees, to the company who wrote the 
software.

> However, I don't trust myself to set up a secure unix installation;
> certainly not to a point that I would provide professional services
> and bill clients for.  If I were to do that, I would (and should) be
> held liable for damages arising out errors I am responsible for. 

Small print is always good.  Also, some systems need to be more 
secure than others.  For public servers, I outsource to another 
outsourcer.

> The "right" thing to do here, from a business and ethics standpoint,
> is to subcontract a .net professional who can represent you properly. 

I am pushing my customer to re-sign the service contract with the 
developers of the product.  They don't want to spend the money.  
There's politics too - the guy who made the purchasing decision 
doesn't want to admit it was a mistake, so he is pretending there are 
no problems with the software, and therefore there is no need to pay 
for the service contract (or so goes his logic).

It'd make an excellent case study for someone...

> The job will get done properly, you will make money, and your customer
> will be happy.   You're in London, right?  Call up some guys at NGS
> and see if they can help you.  There are some really good people
> there. 

Thanks.  I don't have access to the source, however, so I doubt 
there's anything that can be done.  This app, even the error messages 
are encrypted!  (is that some .NET wheeze? lovely....)  So it can be 
quite touch and go. But it still costs them less than their annual 
support contract would.

Stu

---
Stuart Udall
stuart at@...erdelix.dot net - http://www.cyberdelix.net/

--- 
 * Origin: lsi: revolution through evolution (192:168/0.2)

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/