Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email firstname.lastname@example.org
Date: Thu Dec 06 2007 - 01:12:16 CST
On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 19:36:30 +1300, Nick FitzGerald said:
> likelihood of those problems being permanently addressed, why were
> these issues not addressed at some point when the cost/performance
> points started to be more favourable?
Because when the price/performance shifted to make lots of security features
more feasible, the *same* shift also made it possible to display dancing
hamsters. And one latecomer on particular to the dance decided its best
business strategy was selling things that made hamsters dance, and were
monopolisticically successful at it, to the point where the well has been
poisoned, and it's now a hard sell to convince people that the hamsters (or
any other sort of "active content") are a security risk.....
(To be fair, it *must* be noted that when looked at as a *financial* question,
the marketing of hamsters over security was in fact a *good* decision on the
part of the company - glitz is cheaper than security design, and it sells more.
And for-profit corporations are there to make a profit, sooo.....)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/