I guess there's only one real alternative to this terrible circle of doom then: stop feeding in to the man's machine and become a blackhat and stop disclosing. *waits for Valdis to hand in his hat & authorization to use FD.
On Dec 6, 2007 2:12 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.....) > > _______________________________________________ > 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/
