| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <200307271619.h6RGJcKp032557@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu) Subject: DCOM RPC exploit (dcom.c) On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 10:49:40 EDT, Chris Paget said: > I agree completely that maybe the best way to stop all this is to make vendors > liable for flaws in their products. I heard rumours that this was being > considered in the US - anyone know what the score is? Be careful what you ask for, you may get it. There be many nasty legal dragons here. Who gets to foot the bill if a security hole is found in an open source product like Apache? Or one that's just "3 guys in their living room"? It's going to be REALLY hard to write a law that prevents disclaimer of liability for a big software shop and still allows it for the average GPL software... Who pays if the vendor/author has already released a patch and people haven't upgraded? This is an important case - note that it's the rare worm that's gotten loose before the vendor has a patch.... -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 226 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.grok.org.uk/pipermail/full-disclosure/attachments/20030727/74589853/attachment.bin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists