| 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: <200506080345.j583jBnO010688@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Date: Wed Jun 8 04:45:40 2005 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu) Subject: Exploits Selling / Buying On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 11:15:45 +0300, Georgi Guninski said: > On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 02:54:49PM -0700, Eric Paynter wrote: > > Clearly the original post was either a troll or a fraud. We don't need to > > keep telling him how weak the business model is. > > you should also tell idefense how weak their business model is (check in > their advisories the difference between "clients notified" and "gone public"). > > it is strange how people aprove a bloated u$a corp, but flame semianonymous > poster :) The fact that iDefense is doing it as well doesn't make it any less weak a model. It may be quite workable when you're the only company doing it - but if another company starts doing it as well, you end up with a price war likely to take out at least one of the competitors. If nothing else, the presence of competition will likely soon tell us what the *real* value of an exploit is, as opposed to what iDefence has been paying :) -------------- 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/20050607/7a028b3c/attachment.bin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists