Hi, (Short version: ISV doesn't think security patches are needed, I need to convince them otherwise. Long version follows)
I'm writing because I'm working with an ISV that develops accouting products on Oracle (Specifically Oracle 8i, 9i and 9i app). Currently, they license the Oracle database as an application specific license. My current problem is they refuse to offer security patches for 8i, 9i or 9i app server, saying that the functioning of their app is more important than security fixes, and that a customer will have a firewall which is "good enough." I'd love to suggest users get patches themselves, but that requires each customer that uses this product get a metalink account, which costs money and the ISV says they won't support the database once the patches are applied (which, obviously is a problem for accounting software!). I've done some preliminary google searches to find white papers/articles/etc. to support my argument that security patches *in addition* to best practices like firewalls, good passwords, etc. lead to a secure product. I've found some, but I'd love to get some other white papers/articles/etc. in order to convince the ISV that security patches aren't an "optional" kind of thing, but rather a requirement in today's world. Any pertinent legal pointers would be helpful too (though the ISV is in Canada, so. . .NAFTA) I'd also like to avoid "wow, that's a dumb vendor, don't use their product" kind of comments, so if you can hold back that would be great. But if you just can't, then I can understand. In the event someone from Oracle is listening, I'd love to be contacted in the event Oracle thinks its a bad idea their ISVs are staunchly opposed to security patches. Thanks for your time, -- adam _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
