[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e1755a4f679262c4726767efe4f3cf6f.squirrel@webmail.xs4all.nl>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 09:47:01 +0200
From: "Walter van Holst" <walter.van.holst@...all.nl>
To: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: No anti-virus software? No internet connection
On Thu, June 24, 2010 09:42, Cor Rosielle wrote:
> ...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
The answer to that kind of question is quite often related to the
industry average. For example no more failures than one standard
deviation below the industry average.
Regards,
Walter
_______________________________________________
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