| 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: <200408140052.i7E0qY33030630@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu) Subject: (no subject) On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 21:17:44 +0200, Maarten said: > The only thing Todd (and I) are trying to say is that it is possible to rename > after the fact. I don't #!%$&* care how many old Cobol programs need > adapting for that to "get" possible, but the fact remains that it IS. The question is *in fact* what ROI the companies get for modifying all that old Cobol. "Possible" and "worth doing" are two different things... > Don't start again about how your current procedures may prevent or complicate > that. Worse integration problems, by far more complex and bigger companies > or conglomerates are being tackled every day. Yeah. To name a few ? Note that here the ROI is pretty easy - you fix the compatibility or the company goes under. > How about mergers, or international intelligence-exchange between law > enforcement agencies. Do you think that they let anyone stop them by > complaining that database format X isn't readily compatible with format Y ? > No. They fix it, they make it work together no matter what. Actually, that isn't always the case. http://www.publicintegrity.org/report.aspx?aid=332&sid=100 Yes, a database so borked that copying it could break it. > So don't start about how impossible it is for you to rename one simple entry. It's not a question of being *impossible*. But if it costs them US$750K to do it, and the expected return is under US$750K, why should they do it? Hell, we're talking about an industry which as a whole *continues* to keep spewing out 'We removed a virus/worm' warnings to known not-at-fault addresses - presumably the (probably very low) cost of ceasing to do so is counterbalanced by the advertising benefit of the spam. If they won't do *THAT* little thing that's *obviously* in the public interest, why should they change the way they name stuff, at probably higher cost, and less obvious benefit? -------------- 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/20040813/9e89c194/attachment.bin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists