|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Compromised machines liable for damage?
On Wed, Dec 28, 2005 at 11:17:11PM -0500, Barry Shein wrote: > > To beat a dead horse just a little harder the problem I have is when a > certain company kept distributing software with security flaws > specifically because they're profiting from those flaws. > > For example, graphics libraries which accept binary code chunks to be > executed in kernel mode without limits for support of quick screen > updates in games considered of marketing importance. Blaming it on the > games vendors seems inadequate, particularly over several years and > releases of each. > > That's just pure economics and, hence, profiting on others' serious > pain. And yet, I'd bet $10 that: * They know this. * They are just implementing what their customers demand. * They accept that allowing direct access in order to obtain performance at the experience of security is a necessary model in a wide variety of situations, particularly gaming. * They don't give a flying crap what a bunch of perceived whining kooks on NANOG think about that tradeoff. God knows, I wouldn't. :) -- Richard A Steenbergen <[email protected]> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
|