On 13 Feb 2004 at 7:32, Edward W. Ray wrote: > "Does it not appear that the leak could have been done to ensure > that M$ has a legal argument to abate liability in case they are > sued?" > > I think their EULA which you accept when installing covers their > ass for just about anything. <<< This may be true where WIN OS based box is deployed in a commercial environment. However, I think their EULA is trumped by the new US Federal Regulations (HIPAA, DHS, CFR, etc) if the Microsoft knew or should of known that their Win OS was going to be deployed in a solution that was designed to ensure the security (integrity, confidentiality, accessibility) of people, premises, critical infrastructure, systems, resources or data and knew or should have known that their Win OS had flaws/vulnerabilities which could be exploited to threaten such security and failed to disclose such flaws/vulnerabilities to the buyer.
At minimum, the new regulations require that all known Privacy/Security Risks be disclosed and safeguards, policies and procedures be put in place to mitigate these risks. -- -- **************************************************** Bernie / [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chief Technology Architect / Chief Security Officer Euclidean Systems, Inc. ******************************************************* // "There is no expedient to which a man will not go // to avoid the pure labor of honest thinking." // Honest thought, the real business capital. // Observe> Think> Plan> Think> Do> Think> ******************************************************* _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
