Full Disclosure mailing list archives

Re: EULA


From: "Curt Purdy" <purdy () tecman com>
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 18:25:08 -0500

Actually, failure to achieve compliance with  HIPAA could find hospital
executives and physicians facing fines of up to $25,000. Certain  criminal
violations could cost individuals and  organizations $250,000 and up to 10
years in jail.  This is quoted out of more than one reference.

Curt Purdy CISSP, GSEC, MCSE+I, CNE, CCDA
Information Security Engineer
DP Solutions
cpurdy () dpsol com
936.637.7977 ext. 121

----------------------------------------

If you spend more on coffee than on IT security, you will be hacked.
What's more, you deserve to be hacked.
-- former White House cybersecurity zar Richard Clarke


-----Original Message-----
From: full-disclosure-admin () lists netsys com
[mailto:full-disclosure-admin () lists netsys com]On Behalf Of Gregory A.
Gilliss
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 5:13 PM
To: full-disclosure () lists netsys com
Subject: [inbox] Re: [Full-disclosure] EULA


Okay, this is from my girlfriend, so flame her if it's wrong :-)

Basically, a HIPAA compliant hospital/practice/etc. that is found to be
in violation of, say, the regs on software change control, can be fined
up to US$ 10,000 per violation. I would guess that tha *could* be construed
as "per personal computer" if they wanted to be dicks about it...

But, it gets better...if they hospital/practice/etc that has been
inspected and cited doesn't comply with the violated HIPAA regs,
they can be closed down.  BAM!  In practice I do not think that this has
happened (yet) because the whole HIPAA thing is so new. However if you
look at it from the security perspective, I expect that M$ legal will be
amending their existing EULA for health care providers as soon as they read
about this...

G

On or about 2003.09.09 14:08:04 +0000, David Hayes (david.hayes () mci com)
said:

So, if a HIPAA site uses Windows and accepts the SP3 EULA, they're
screwed.  If a HIPAA site uses Windows and does not accept the SP3
EULA, they're screwed.

Logical conclusion, if a HIPAA site uses Windows, they're screwed.
Thus they should use a different OS?

--
David Hayes    Network Security Operations Center     MCI Network Svcs
email: david.hayes () MCI com      vnet: 777-7236     voice: 972-729-7236


On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 01:13:21PM -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu wrote:
On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 08:43:14 PDT, D B <geggam692000 () yahoo com>  said:

does the EULA of Microsoft violate lawyer client
privilege ..... as in  if my lawyer is using windows
is he violating my rights

I can't speak for the legal profession, but the SP3 EULA (the one where
you agree to
allow Microsoft to install, without warning or notification, anything
labeled a "security
patch", even if it breaks 3rd party software), is known to be very bad
mojo for sites
covered by HIPPA, because it cedes software change control.

Of course, if you fail to agree to the EULA and you're a HIPPA site,
you're still screwed
because then you can't install post-SP3 patches.



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

--
Gregory A. Gilliss                                    Telephone: 1 650 872
2420
Computer Engineering                                   E-mail:
greg () gilliss com
Computer Security                                                ICQ:
123710561
Software Development                          WWW:
http://www.gilliss.com/greg/
PGP Key fingerprint 2F 0B 70 AE 5F 8E 71 7A 2D 86 52 BA B7 83 D9 B4 14 0E 8C
A3

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


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


Current thread: