Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

$50,000 to keep Symantec source code private

zdnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 82 posts

Re: $50,000 to keep Symantec source code private

#12

Post by DevX101 »

rdtsc wrote: post #4

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.

Re: $50,000 to keep Symantec source code private

#13

Post by mseebach »

rdtsc wrote: post #4

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…

Both probably. Also patent trolls ("Using a for loop to sequentially read the bytes of a file" and what not).

Finally, I suspect at least part of the reason is that the source code contains a number of heuristics that, if known, are easier to circumvent for malware developers.

Re: $50,000 to keep Symantec source code private

#14

Post by alexholehouse »

recursive wrote: post #5

This makes Symantec look a lot worse than "Anonymous" IMO. Symantec is supposedly a reputable computer software company. The fact that they have to resort to legal means to secure their own source code is not a positive indication that they do a good job.

So you'd prefer illegal means? I'm not sure I understand your comment.

Re: $50,000 to keep Symantec source code private

#15

Post by maximveksler »

alexholehouse wrote: post #14
recursive wrote: post #5

This makes Symantec look a lot worse than "Anonymous" IMO. Symantec is supposedly a reputable computer software company. The fact that they have to resort to legal means to secure their own source code is not a positive indication that they do a good job.

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.

Re: $50,000 to keep Symantec source code private

#17

Post by scott_s »

rdtsc wrote: post #4

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…

The first sentence opens with "As a part of a sting operation..."

Re: $50,000 to keep Symantec source code private

#19

Post by Ctech237 »

At this point Symantec has probably come to the conclusion that their source code is compromised. I don't think it’s possible for them to assume that anon won't use the source for themselves. The whole thing is a sting operation. If it wasn’t then Symantec’s future is dependent on an agreement that has no way of being verified. Anon probably knows this too and there just having a laugh.
Post reply on HN