__/ [ Jamie Hart ] on Friday 16 February 2007 15:45 \__
> "DFS" <nospam@xxxxxxxx> wrote in
> news:NB_Ah.8640$B8.979@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
>
>> BearItAll wrote:
>>
>>> Bad coding? Isn't that bugs? No, I really do mean bad coding, such as
>>> was picked up in here recently, repeatable:- selecting a directory or
>>> file that no longer exists causes a crash. That means that the
>>> programmer hasn't bothered to check that a request for a file was
>>> successfull and went ahead and used what ever was returned (-1) as a
>>> file handle.
>>
>> I'm going to be testing this, on Vista, and if it doesn't happen as
>> you say there will be a reckoning.
>>
> Please, don't say things like that. I know laughter is good for stress,
> but I've got work to do.
>
> I'm too busy to spend all day rolling on the floor laughing at what a
> pompous blowhard you are.
Speaking of bad coding...
Make vendors liable for bad code says expert
,----[ Quote ]
| When U.S. courts ruled more than a decade ago that consumers weren't
| liable for fraudulent use of their credit card numbers after the
| first US$50, credit card companies -- which were left holding the
| huge bill -- took notice and dove into fighting fraud and losses.
|
| That's the same approach needed now in the software industry to
| help drastically improve IT security, according to Bruce Schneier,
| a security expert, author and CTO of U.S.-based enterprise security
| vendor BT Counterpane.
`----
http://www.linuxworld.com.au/index.php?id=2064310434&rid=-50
There's also this gem that I caught some time ago.
=== Begin quote ==
"The cost of these steps could reduce our operating margins. Despite
these efforts, actual or perceived security vulnerabilities in our
products could lead some customers to seek to return products, to reduce
or delay future purchases, or to use competing products. Customers may
also increase their expenditures on protecting their existing computer
systems from attack, which could delay adoption of new technologies. Any
of these actions by customers could adversely affect our revenue. In
addition, actual or perceived vulnerabilities may lead to claims against
us. While our license agreements typically contain provisions that
eliminate or limit our exposure to such liability, there is no assurance
these provisions will be held effective under applicable laws and
judicial decisions."
Ah, from the horse's mouth: Microsoft just might be held legally responsible
for selling software that is insecure.
== End quote ==
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20061122235224396
--
~~ Greetings
Roy S. Schestowitz | Linux: does exactly what it says on the tin
http://Schestowitz.com | Free as in Free Beer ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Load average (/proc/loadavg): 0.61 0.29 0.24 11/130 15816
http://iuron.com - semantic search engine project initiative
|
|
