full-disclosure - why commcerical software *could* be better [WAS: Re: Microsoft prepares security assault on Linux]

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

Message-ID: <200311122126.XAA10865@home.ntrl.net>
From: guninski at guninski.com (Georgi Guninski)
Subject: why commcerical software *could* be better
 [WAS: Re: Microsoft prepares security assault on Linux]

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 22:33:11 -0800
Gadi Evron <ge@...tistical.reprehensible.net> wrote:

> I apologize if this somehow gets to the list twice, I accidentally 
> posted it here with the wrong email address:
> 
> 2. A commercial company providing with liability (and responsibility)
>     for the software you use (in other words - tech support and someone
>     to blame).

Can you explain what responsibility does m$ take for its crap? Just read
the m$ EULA again before using the word "responsibility". (having the
right to say "fsck bill" does not qualify as responsibility).

> 3. No source (!!) available for people to examine, thus making it, to a
>     level, harder to locate security "holes" - for outsides in any case.
> 

There are enough bugs in windoze, but haven't you heard the rumours that
a lot of propriatary os code has leaked?

georgi