Linux guru argues against security liability...of MS too.

anandk · 19-01-2007, 10:09 PM

"Alan Cox, one of the leading Linux kernel developers, has told a House of Lords hearing that neither open- nor closed-source developers should be liable for the security of the code they write.

..both open- and closed-source software developers, including Microsoft, have an ethical duty to make their code as secure as possible...but companies could not be held liable for their code...

Microsoft's national technology officer, Jerry Fishenden, who spoke at the hearing, said the responsibility for security breaches should rest firmly with those perpetrating the breaches...People don't look at window-lock makers for the responsibility for burglary ..."

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/security/0,1...9285532,00.htm

arunks · 19-01-2007, 10:15 PM

thanx 4 info

Anindya · 19-01-2007, 10:54 PM

So, it seems that they r trying to wash their hands off and stay clean. That means viruses and malicious codes will keep infecting and patches will keep coming out. Why cant they produce a software with the patches which they will give later in the beginning? Strange politics at work may be!

Aberforth · 20-01-2007, 12:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anindya

Why cant they produce a software with the patches which they will give later in the beginning? Strange politics at work may be!

That would be extremely difficult if not impossible. Hackers would always find a way to circumvent some new bug/security hole so patches would be necessary. Moreover no software is perfect, the more state of the art a software is, the more it is vulnerable to bugs.