Jorge Amodio wrote:
Unfortunately in the software industry you get (when you do, not always) the alert and the patch after the fact, ie the exploit has been already out there and your machine may probably have been already compromised.
I never seen any operating system coming with a sign saying "Use at your own risk", why when I buy a piece of software I have to assume it to be insecure, and why I have to spend extra money on a recurring basis to make it less insecure, when there is no guarantee whatsoever that after maintenance, upgrades, patches and extra money my system will not get compromised because a moron forgot to include a term inside an if before compiling.
Insecurity and exploitable software is a huge business. I don't expect software to be 100% safe or correct, but some of the holes and issues are derived form bad quality stuff and as car manufacturers the software producers should have a recall/replacement program at their own cost.
My .02 Jorge
Again, apples and oranges to a degree. Car owners don't receive a "use at your own risk" disclaimer either. Yet some Toyota owners faced horrifying instances of "subpar" prechecks. GM recalled a million or so cars and the list will always go on and on. Mistakes happen period and when mistakes DON'T happen Murphy's Law does. I can speak for any software vendor but I can speak about insecurity and exploitability of software. That too is what it is from any standpoint be it anywhere in Redmond to any other location. Look at Sun's horrible misstep with telnet: <humor> Highlights The Solaris 10 Operating System, the most secure OS on the planet, provides security features previously only found in Sun's military-grade Trusted Solaris OS. </humor> Really? http://blogs.securiteam.com/index.php/archives/814 9 Vulnerabilities for Microsoft *ANYTHING* of the first 60 published. But again, this is irrelevant. I don't care for any operating system anymore. I care for the one that accomplishes what I need to do at any given time. Be it Linux, Windows, BSD, Solaris heck get me plan9 with Rio, I could care less. However, myself as an end user, I'm the one responsible for my machine as I am the one running it. If I find it to be insecure or "virus/trojan/malware/exploitability" prone, there is no one shoving it down my throat. Even if I didn't know any better. So for those who are unaware of what's going on, how difficult would it be to create a function within an ISP tasked with keeping a network structured to avoid allowing OUTBOUND malicious traffic. We could argue about: "But that would be snooping" where I could always point at that a NAC could be set up prior to allowing a client to connect. Can anyone honestly tell me that one of their clients would be upset slash disturbed slash alarmed about an ISP protecting them (the customer) as well as other "neighbors" (customers)? That's like saying: "Oh they set up a neighborhood watch association... and they're watching over my house when I'm not home or capable of watching all sides of my house... HOW DARE THEY!" Sorry I can't picture that happening. What I picture is fear and people dragging their feet. I can tell you what though, for the first company to pick up on that framework, I can guarantee you the turnover rate wouldn't be as high as say being on a network where now the business connection is lagged because of spam, botnets and other oddities that could have been prevented. -- =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ J. Oquendo SGFA, SGFE, C|EH, CNDA, CHFI, OSCP, CPT "It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. If you think about that, you'll do things differently." - Warren Buffett 227C 5D35 7DCB 0893 95AA 4771 1DCE 1FD1 5CCD 6B5E http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x5CCD6B5E