RE: Symantec wants to criminalize security info sharing

["Bruce Ediger" <eballen1 () qwest net>]

On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, Jonathan A. Zdziarski wrote:

> Has anyone called a boycott of Symantec lately?

No, but we should, for two specific reasons:

1. They support spammers.  How many years have you been getting
the spams for "Really Cheap Norton Systemworks" packages?  And
how many complaints have you made to spamwatch () symantec com?
And how much in the way of results have you seen?

I think I've gotten regularly scheduled spams from at least 3 spam
operations over the last 3 years, all advertising cheap Systemworks.

Clearly, Symantec is funding this spamming.  And don't tell me that
they won a suit against a spammer - why did I get two copies of the spam
today alone?

2. They're an anti-virus firm, but the best they can offer is "update
your virus signature files regularly", even though that's about as effective
as shouting "U SUKK!!!!" at the viruses, based on how many copies of Sobig.f
and Swen I've gotten.

At least they could admit that trying to protect Windows/MSFT products is
pretty hopeless, and encourage people to switch to more functional, yet
free products like Pine, or mailx or whatever Mac OS X uses to read email.
None of them have ever had a macro virus, despite many, many buffer overflows
and other disgusting security problems.

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html