- Jun 30, 2001
- 12,572
- 0
- 0
http://www.msnbc.com/local/PISEA/139286.asp?0dm=C15OT is the story that prompted me to write this.
I feel that the answer is no. I would analogize this to homes. You house is not 100% secure. In fact, it's incredibly insecure. All someone would have to do is throw a brick through a windows and boom, they're in. Your stuff gets stolen. Who is to blame for this? If we were to blame software companies for flaws in their products, then I would have to say that the window company would be liable for building a product that was vulnerable to bricks.
I realize that there are some flaws that software companies should be held accountable for (Win95?), but security issues are not one of them. We should be cracking down on the people who write software to exploit those vulnerabliilties, just as we crack down on the people who throw the brick. There will always be issues because you have one company trying to design an application, and 100,000 hackers out there trying to break it. The hackers will always win.
Anyone have anything to add?
I feel that the answer is no. I would analogize this to homes. You house is not 100% secure. In fact, it's incredibly insecure. All someone would have to do is throw a brick through a windows and boom, they're in. Your stuff gets stolen. Who is to blame for this? If we were to blame software companies for flaws in their products, then I would have to say that the window company would be liable for building a product that was vulnerable to bricks.
I realize that there are some flaws that software companies should be held accountable for (Win95?), but security issues are not one of them. We should be cracking down on the people who write software to exploit those vulnerabliilties, just as we crack down on the people who throw the brick. There will always be issues because you have one company trying to design an application, and 100,000 hackers out there trying to break it. The hackers will always win.
Anyone have anything to add?
Facebook
Twitter