Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email email@example.com
From: Rohit Patnaik (quanticlegmail.com)
Date: Thu Jan 21 2010 - 17:34:36 CST
Given Microsoft's already poor reputation regarding security, I'm not sure
how it'd be possible for them to degrade their reputation any more. Very
few people use Microsoft software because of its security reputation. The
main reasons for using Microsoft are ease of use and compatibility with
other users. Given that, I'm not sure that Microsoft's perception will be
affected very much in the user community.
-- Rohit Patnaik
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 6:17 PM, ☣ frank^2 <frank2dc949.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Dan Kaminsky <dandoxpara.com> wrote:
> > Seriously. I mean, just look at Linux, Firefox, and OpenOffice.
> > Pristine code, not a single security vulnerability between them :)
> That's a red herring. His point was the public perception of the
> software company-- true or not-- would be hindered because Microsoft
> is all-encompassing. Compared to the world of open-source, the risk is
> distributed by the sheer virtue of software engineering being
> distributed amongst thousands of entities. This means that the
> vulnerabilities are spread across different parties, rather than
> having all vulnerabilities encompassed by a single party-- in this
> case, Microsoft.
> His argument was irrelevant to corporations vs. open-source being more
> vulnerable than one another-- it was simply a commentary on
> distributed risk in software engineering.
> "Did you and them get your degree from the same university of trolls?
> I have mistaken nothing for nothing. Fuck you."
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/