Message-ID: <27C4CD168204684589EC07B2BCFA9CFE02885163@hurricane.ssdcorp.net>
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 13:20:44 -0400
From: "Alex Eckelberry" <AlexE@...belt-software.com>
To: "Jim Harrison" <Jim@...tools.org>,
	"Mark Litchfield" <Mark@...software.com>,
	<bugtraq@...urityfocus.com>, <vulnwatch@...nwatch.org>,
	<full-disclosure@...ts.netsys.com>
Subject: RE: Your Opinion

Actually, I have a hard time understanding why it isn't a conflict of
interest -- at least in theory (perhaps not in practice). 

Security apps sell in direct proportion to infection rates, fear of
infection, etc.   

In the case of Msft, the more exploits they have in the browser, the
more security apps they can sell. 

The less secure the operating system is, the more the vendor can sell
security apps. 

And so on. 

Thompson is right, in that it is a theoretical conflict of interest.  I
suppose the real question is:  Is it the same from a practical
perspective.

Alex Eckelberry



 

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Harrison [mailto:Jim@...tools.org] 
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 6:55 PM
To: Mark Litchfield; bugtraq@...urityfocus.com; vulnwatch@...nwatch.org;
full-disclosure@...ts.netsys.com
Subject: RE: Your Opinion

Thanx, Mark

One phrase; "consider the source".

The expert participant in this interview is (catch me before I faint) -
Symantec CEO John Thompson.  Symantec and other security vendors have
had more than ample opportunity to get in this game and it wasn't until
Vista hit the Beta track that Symantec folks even started noticing that
their hooks were (re)moved.  It's a potentially questionable process
that uses the same mechanisms as the malware they seek to defend
against.  Yes, I know; "think like a criminal"...

I agree that functional and security patches should be free (and they
are), but software packages to protect Jo(sephin)e User from their
propensity for digital self-abuse should be sold.  You want me to
protect you from your own actions? - pay me.  This is the basis for most
consultant businesses.  The argument that the OS vender shouldn't "get
into the security game" is self-serving at best (remember the source?).
Thanks to recent EU and DoJ decisions, no one can argue that "they don't
have access to the same information as MS teams".  This is freely
available on MSDN and if you want protocol specifics, to anyone willing
to sign a licensing agreement with MS.

IMHO, he's just plain wrong and is only making "they're being
meanie-poo-poo-heads" noises.

Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Litchfield [mailto:Mark@...software.com]
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 11:49 AM
To: bugtraq@...urityfocus.com; vulnwatch@...nwatch.org;
full-disclosure@...ts.netsys.com
Subject: Your Opinion

I have heard the comment "It's a huge conflict of interest" for one
company to provide both an operating platform and a security platform"
made by John Thompson (CEO Symantec) many times from many different
people.  See article below.

http://www2.csoonline.com/blog_view.html?CID=32554

In my personal opinion, regardless of the vendor, if they create an OS,
why would it be a conflict of interest for them to want to protect their
own OS from attack.  One would assume that this is a responsible
approach by the vendor, but one could also argue that their OS should be
coded securely in the first place.  If this were to happen then the need
for the Symantec's, McAfee's of the world would some what diminsh.

Anyway I am just curious as to what other people think.

Thanks in advance

Mark 


All mail to and from this domain is GFI-scanned.


....

Powered by blists - more mailing lists