full-disclosure - GROUP CONSIDERING SUIT AGAINST MICROSOFT OVER SLAMMER VIRUS

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]

Message-ID: <20030204040018.P2803@thot.informatik.uni-kl.de>
From: jmayer at loplof.de (Joerg Mayer)
Subject: GROUP CONSIDERING SUIT AGAINST MICROSOFT OVER SLAMMER VIRUS

On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 03:06:27AM +0100, Juraj Bednar wrote:
> he meant, that setting the liability precedent is quite important thing.
> if someone sues microsoft over security flaw and wins (even in korea),
> anyone can sue *insert your favourite os vendor name here* and win too. 
> 
> every software has bugs, making vendors liable is not a trivial thing.
> making vendors liable for not providing security fixes in timely manner
> is another thing (and maybe better).

What may be interesting here is that you a) could "acidentally" install the
vulnerable component by doing a full install of one fo the bigger office
packets - so you really aren't aware that you are running the vulnerable
software on your workstation and b) the windows update button doesn't
list/provide the needed patch.

  Ciao
          J?rg
--
Joerg Mayer                                          <jmayer@...lof.de>
I found out that "pro" means "instead of" (as in proconsul). Now I know
what proactive means.