Valdis.Kletnieksvt.edu
Date: Tue Jun 07 2005 - 22:45:10 CDT

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

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 :)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001

iD8DBQFCpmnGcC3lWbTT17ARAmrUAKCwUnoq9LYnGfax83aklwwNlq4LHQCg7ZXD
lByvjO13mkoQG36dlkMiB7c=
=rO6A
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]