[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
de-peering for security sake
On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 11:09:27 -0800, Owen DeLong said:
> > Making the owner of the host responsible for an attack -personally-
> > responsible would require every grandma & 6 year old to have insurance before
> > buying a laptop or Xbox. And would bankrupt your favorite startup no matter how
> > smart & competent the first time a zero-day caught them by surprise.
> Agreed??? I think, instead, that the commercial purveyors of vulnerable software
> should be held liable.
And this is another one that needs *really* careful definitions.
How much time does Redhat get to patch a bug in (say) OpenSSH or the kernel
or any other package from upstream, before you want to hold them liable?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 848 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20160116/c143c17f/attachment.pgp>