Re: Office 0day

["secure poon" <suckure () gmail com>]

*Proposition*

Microsoft is a 280+ billion dollar corporation. Why don't/can't they have a
standard ransom fee for security flaws?

0day Remote OS flaw: $1,000,000
0day  IE explorer flaws that give administrative shells: $200,000
0day (other flaws) that affect other products (ie office): $200,000
etc..(these fees could be much higher)

Provided the person who discovered the vulnerability gives a full working
patch, Then Microsoft could patch the hole right away and people could
update. (yes i know lots of people don't update but at least it is a start,
and then legally they would be so liable). Maybe this concept isint new and
I am just in the dark about it.

*Question*
**
Why does'nt Microsoft (or any company) do this? And also has Microsoft ever
been held criminaly liable for negligence in a criminal case for not
patching a flaw leading to a security breach? Or is there team of lawyers
just to much for any normal person?




On 6/25/07, Kradorex Xeron <admin () digibase ca> wrote:
> On Sunday 24 June 2007 16:19, toto.toto () webmail co za wrote:
> > I can't give detail here
>
> Isn't  this list called "full-disclosure"? - in otherwords: If you aren't
> going to disclose anything: DON'T post that you "have something". This
> list
> is designed specifically for disclosing (and discussing on the occasion)
> vulnerabilities, problems, etc to the entire community at once, not just
> selectively who you choose (i.e. who buys your "0day").
>
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/