Imo, what J Thompson _meant_ to say was, "It's a pain for security ISVs who
have to find creative ways of selling features which are part of the OS; We
don't care if it's better for the end user, we care about our bottom line.
OS vendors should make no efforts at securing their products so that we,
Symantec, can sell you things which should have been in the OS in the first
place."
outlaw@zks.net
http://bubbler.net/outlaw/blog
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Litchfield [mailto:Mark@ngssoftware.com]
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 2:49 PM
To: bugtraq@securityfocus.com; vulnwatch@vulnwatch.org;
full-disclosure@lists.netsys.com
Subject: Your Opinion
I have heard the comment "It's a huge conflict of interest" for one company
to provide both an operating platform and a security platform" made by John
Thompson (CEO Symantec) many times from many different people. See article
below.
http://www2.csoonline.com/blog_view.html?CID=32554
In my personal opinion, regardless of the vendor, if they create an OS, why
would it be a conflict of interest for them to want to protect their own OS
from attack. One would assume that this is a responsible approach by the
vendor, but one could also argue that their OS should be coded securely in
the first place. If this were to happen then the need for the Symantec's,
McAfee's of the world would some what diminsh.
Anyway I am just curious as to what other people think.
Thanks in advance
Mark
討論串 (同標題文章)
完整討論串 (本文為第 1 之 7 篇)：