Full Disclosure mailing list archives
Re: Soft-Chewy insides (was: CyberInsecurity: The cost of Monopoly)
From: George Capehart <capegeo () opengroup org>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 10:55:40 -0400
On Monday 29 September 2003 08:23 am, Michael Scheidell wrote: <snip>
These fins and jail time will directly target the C/Board level, and only indirectly affect the security teams (they may lose their jobs when the company they work for goes bankrupt) Its only a matter of time before the lawyers finish up with big tobacco and move on to SARBOX/HIPAA and GLBA work.My $0.02.I'll see you that .02/c and raise you 5 million dollars (the Maximum fine under SARBOX)
<cynical grin> Would that that would really help. I guess maybe in the long run it might, but I'm not holding my breath. There's still the small matter of connecting cause with effect and then implementing a program that will function appropriately at all levels of the organization. I'll bet a dozen Krispy Kremes that the response of many Boards and C-level officers will be a knee-jerk "Off with their heads" followed by a return to business as usual. It's a lot easier to offer up a sacrificial lamb than it is to change corporate culture . . . But it will certianly be interesting to follow . . . ;-) Regards, -- George Capehart capegeo at opengroup dot org PGP Key ID: 0x63F0F642 http://pgp.mit.edu Key fingerprint: BE7A 9A4A 6A8F 363A BAC5 4866 631B B2F6 63F0 F642 "It is always possible to agglutenate multiple separate problems into a single complex interdependent solution. In most cases this is a bad idea. -- RFC 1925 _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Current thread:
- Re: Pudent default security - Was: CyberInsecurity: The cost of Monopoly, (continued)
- Re: Pudent default security - Was: CyberInsecurity: The cost of Monopoly Michal Zalewski (Sep 29)
- RE: Re: Pudent default security - Was: CyberInsecurity: The cost of Monopoly Steve Wray (Sep 30)
- RE: Re: Pudent default security - Was: CyberInsecurity: The cost of Monopoly Michal Zalewski (Sep 30)
- RE: Re: Pudent default security - Was: CyberInsecurity: The cost of Monopoly Steve Wray (Sep 30)
- RE: Re: Pudent default security - Was: CyberInsecurity: The cost of Monopoly j (Sep 30)
- RE: Re: Pudent default security - Was: CyberInsecurity: The cost of Monopoly Frank Knobbe (Sep 30)
- Re: CyberInsecurity: The cost of Monopoly Florian Weimer (Sep 28)
- Soft-Chewy insides (was: CyberInsecurity: The cost of Monopoly) Curt Purdy (Sep 28)
- Re: Soft-Chewy insides (was: CyberInsecurity: The cost of Monopoly) George Capehart (Sep 29)
- Re: Soft-Chewy insides (was: CyberInsecurity: The cost of Monopoly) Michael Scheidell (Sep 29)
- Re: Soft-Chewy insides (was: CyberInsecurity: The cost of Monopoly) George Capehart (Sep 29)
- Re: Soft-Chewy insides (was: CyberInsecurity: The cost of Monopoly) Michael Scheidell (Sep 29)
- RE: [inbox] Re: CyberInsecurity: The cost of Monopoly Curt Purdy (Sep 28)
- RE: CyberInsecurity: The cost of Monopoly Jonathan A. Zdziarski (Sep 27)
- RE: CyberInsecurity: The cost of Monopoly Joe (Sep 27)
- RE: CyberInsecurity: The cost of Monopoly Jonathan A. Zdziarski (Sep 27)
- RE: CyberInsecurity: The cost of Monopoly Joe (Sep 27)
- RE: CyberInsecurity: The cost of Monopoly Jonathan A. Zdziarski (Sep 28)
- WINDOWS XP software restriction policy [path rule] bypass... bipin gautam (Sep 28)