| 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: <001201cb1370$bfdd08f0$3f971ad0$@com> Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 09:42:08 +0200 From: "Cor Rosielle" <cor@...post24.com> To: "'Bipin Gautam'" <bipin.gautam@...il.com> Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk Subject: Re: No anti-virus software? No internet connection ...snip... > The product that fail miserably, throughout the year(s?) should be > declared "unfit for purpose" .......like an expired food which is > harmful for health. Basically it is an interesting thought. I see a challenge though. Is 3 failures per year miserable? Or should we raise the limit to 10? Or lower it to 1? You get the point. The criteria to determine if a product fails miserably is not a fact, but a decision. Comparing it with expired food: I throw away food before the expiration date because I can see the fungus on it and decide it is not safe to eat it. On the other hand I consume food way after the expiration date because it is perfectly fine food. This error margin is caused by the statistics behind the expiration date: be on the safe side and prefer the chance to throw away good food than the chance to accept bad food. > If its a "technological problem" overall, maybe they should move to > application white-listing or something better....... Sure, awareness and thinking is better. But some people don't think and than "technological measures" is about all the protection they really have. > thanks, > -bipin Cor _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists