Who cares. No discussion of this topic has EVER reached a conclusion, mostly because poeple are too pig headed to ever even try and agree with each other.
IMO - Drop it. On 7/27/05, J.A. Terranson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, 27 Jul 2005, Adam Jones wrote: > > > What exactly is wrong with this? I personally would rather have 3com > > buying up exploits (probably under an agreement for exclusive access) > > instead of having them sold to the highest, probably malicious, > > bidder. > > Your argument amounts to "The lesser of two evils", which is NOT the same > as ethical behaviour. > > > Even if someone sells it to both there is a more reputable > > group that has the exploit and can help with mitigation. > > "Reputable"? I'm sorry, we must have different opinions as to what > constitutes "reputable". A "reputable" company does not encourage the > writing of malware for money, or the withholding of information from the > community (FD) in exchange for mere personal gain. > > -- > Yours, > > J.A. Terranson > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 0xBD4A95BF > > > "A stock broker is someone who handles your money until its all gone." > Diana Hubbard (of Scientology fame) > _______________________________________________ > 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. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
