21–30 of 82 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah seriously, their turnover in 2010 was $6 Billion. I mean if your gonna take all that risk ask for a least $50 million.
It was just for one product, pcAnywhere.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you'd prefer illegal means? I'm not sure I understand your comment.
No, I believe he refers to technical means. Meaning being able to prevent the leak.
Yes, of course it would be ideal to prevent the leak in the first place - being a security company and having your sourcecode stolen is not exactly ideal, nor does it reflect very well on your ability to achieve the express purpose of your company.
HOWEVER, what's done is done, and given this source code has been stolen, I would on balance prefer Symantec to retrieve the code/neutralize the threat through legal means, rather than acting as "hax0rz" themselves. Whether or not this approach will work is a third debate - you'd hope this was, as suggested, a ploy by law enforcement working with Symantec, but I feel like it would reflect far worse on the company if they took an underhand approach to the situation. It's damage limitation at this point, and for a company so integrated with non-tech companies and individuals a legal approach seems a far more sensible option.
Are there even protections for the press in this case? Or is every who pulls this torrent guilty of receiving stolen property or something along those lines.
Excuse my ignorance, but frankly I'd like to poke around.
This will set a bad precedent for such things (unless it is orchestrated as a sting operation). If genuine, it would be interesting to know the primary motivation -- does Symantec not want the world to see its source because it is afraid its competition will steal its ideas ("our source code is full of awesome ideas") or its source code is pretty bad, sloppy, with backdoors for Uncle Sam that will pretty much shame t…
Back doors seem distinctly possible. I'll bet there is some seriously poor crypto in there, too.
This will set a bad precedent for such things (unless it is orchestrated as a sting operation). If genuine, it would be interesting to know the primary motivation -- does Symantec not want the world to see its source because it is afraid its competition will steal its ideas ("our source code is full of awesome ideas") or its source code is pretty bad, sloppy, with backdoors for Uncle Sam that will pretty much shame t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was just for one product, pcAnywhere.
Yes but there are probably lots of code blocks that are used throughout their entire software line. Like how they establish secure connections between the client software and the update server.
Antivirus software might be something different as you might learn how to trick it. But "remote desktop"? It doesn't require any "security by obscurity".
This will set a bad precedent for such things (unless it is orchestrated as a sting operation). If genuine, it would be interesting to know the primary motivation -- does Symantec not want the world to see its source because it is afraid its competition will steal its ideas ("our source code is full of awesome ideas") or its source code is pretty bad, sloppy, with backdoors for Uncle Sam that will pretty much shame t…
I'm pretty sure the "let's send you $1000 over Paypal as a sign of good faith" was a trap. Looks like the hackers didn't fall for it.
The source was leaked last night: http://thepiratebay.se/torrent/7014253/Symantec_s_pcAnywhere... Has anyone heard of an official response from Symantec?