"..diversified too much.." - this is only partly true. It's just as accurate to state that too many cooks spoil the soup as it is to argue that too few cooks accomplish the same. Neither argument is self-validating. Likewise, "..companies that specialize and focus.." is no more accurate than the previous statements. If Microsoft were to specialize, the "powers that be" could easily justify dropping their current payroll to the teams that produce the surviving products. Never make the assumption of "all those devs in one pot"... It just doesn't play out that way and frankly, isn't a sustainable business model. I'll bet that Symantec doesn't maintain a payroll anything like what MS does. "Sunlight is the best disinfectant.." sounds suspiciously like "a thousand eyes" - a theory that has not fully borne the fruit of its supporters. There are as many (if not more) vuln reports for OS software as for MS products. As I stated previously, the "sunlight" has been provided via two separate, but similar legal decisions. "Conflict of interest" is being redefined in some interesting ways during this thread. -----Original Message----- From: jay.tomas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:jay.tomas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 11:50 AM To: AlexE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Jim Harrison; Mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; bugtraq@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; vulnwatch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; full-disclosure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: RE: Your Opinion I would add this angle as well.... Specialization. Its the reason that Microsoft is not Spectacular in anything. They have diversified too much and thus have shortcoming in certain sectors. I thinking having other companies that specialize and focus their efforts in security add a separate layer to the overall mix. Its the reason that Symantec and other vendors dont get into the Streaming Media, Spreadsheet etc. arena. The have expertise in security. I agree its a conflict to create the product and have 100% control of compliance/QA of the security components. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. When you control the whole process you can and will prioritize security/patching releases. Can you imagine if there weren't folks like David Litchfield and other diligent researchers how long it would take to see patches. Jay ----- Original Message ----- From: Alex Eckelberry [mailto:AlexE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] To: Jim@xxxxxxxxxxxx,Mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,bugtraq@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,vulnwatc h@xxxxxxxxxxxxx,full-disclosure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 13:20:44 -0400 Subject: RE: Your Opinion Actually, I have a hard time understanding why it isn't a conflict of interest -- at least in theory (perhaps not in practice). Security apps sell in direct proportion to infection rates, fear of infection, etc. In the case of Msft, the more exploits they have in the browser, the more security apps they can sell. The less secure the operating system is, the more the vendor can sell security apps. And so on. Thompson is right, in that it is a theoretical conflict of interest. I suppose the real question is: Is it the same from a practical perspective. Alex Eckelberry -----Original Message----- From: Jim Harrison [mailto:Jim@xxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 6:55 PM To: Mark Litchfield; bugtraq@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; vulnwatch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; full-disclosure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: RE: Your Opinion Thanx, Mark One phrase; "consider the source". The expert participant in this interview is (catch me before I faint) - Symantec CEO John Thompson. Symantec and other security vendors have had more than ample opportunity to get in this game and it wasn't until Vista hit the Beta track that Symantec folks even started noticing that their hooks were (re)moved. It's a potentially questionable process that uses the same mechanisms as the malware they seek to defend against. Yes, I know; "think like a criminal"... I agree that functional and security patches should be free (and they are), but software packages to protect Jo(sephin)e User from their propensity for digital self-abuse should be sold. You want me to protect you from your own actions? - pay me. This is the basis for most consultant businesses. The argument that the OS vender shouldn't "get into the security game" is self-serving at best (remember the source?). Thanks to recent EU and DoJ decisions, no one can argue that "they don't have access to the same information as MS teams". This is freely available on MSDN and if you want protocol specifics, to anyone willing to sign a licensing agreement with MS. IMHO, he's just plain wrong and is only making "they're being meanie-poo-poo-heads" noises. Jim -----Original Message----- From: Mark Litchfield [mailto:Mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 11:49 AM To: bugtraq@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; vulnwatch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; full-disclosure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Your Opinion I have heard the comment "It's a huge conflict of interest" for one company to provide both an operating platform and a security platform" made by John Thompson (CEO Symantec) many times from many different people. See article below. http://www2.csoonline.com/blog_view.html?CID=32554 In my personal opinion, regardless of the vendor, if they create an OS, why would it be a conflict of interest for them to want to protect their own OS from attack. One would assume that this is a responsible approach by the vendor, but one could also argue that their OS should be coded securely in the first place. If this were to happen then the need for the Symantec's, McAfee's of the world would some what diminsh. Anyway I am just curious as to what other people think. Thanks in advance Mark All mail to and from this domain is GFI-scanned. .... All mail to and from this domain is GFI-scanned.
