Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!dsinc!netnews.upenn.edu!vax1.cc.lehigh.edu!cert.sei.cmu.edu!krvw From: p1@arkham.wimsey.bc.ca (Rob Slade) Newsgroups: comp.virus Subject: Virii on Factory Software & Legal Issues Message-ID: <0005.9105131358.AA08971@ubu.cert.sei.cmu.edu> Date: 10 May 91 20:12:12 GMT Sender: Virus Discussion List Lines: 35 Approved: krvw@sei.cmu.edu walker@AEDC-VAX.AF.MIL (William Walker C60223 x4570) writes: > On the other hand, once informed about a virus problem with their > product, a vendor must be prompt to correct the problem, or it is > indeed time to bring in the lawyers. Padgett: We must sue the vendors! Rob: You're right. Bill: No, they'll come around. Rob: You're right too. Someone-else-on-the-net: Rob, they can't *both* be right! Rob: You know, you're right too! Well, apologies to Sholem Aleichim and everyone else concerned, but there probably isn't any real disagreement here, it's more a matter of differing perspectives. I've had (too) numerous occasions where I've sent a computer owner back to the vendor because of problems with a virus on a new system, only to have the vendor admit it, admit that he (or she) *knew* about a virus loose in the shop, and didn't do anything about it. On one occasion I reported a potential virus to the software manufacturer. This particular company has a very small "core" staff, and yet I kept getting calls back from the company for a week, pointing fingers in all directions, before they would even agree to check their software. (After they agreed to do that, I heard nothing more. An admission of guilt?) ============= Vancouver p1@arkham.wimsey.bc.ca | "If you do buy a Institute for Robert_Slade@mtsg.sfu.ca | computer, don't Research into (SUZY) INtegrity | turn it on." User Canada V7K 2G6 | Richards' 2nd Law Security | of Data Security