Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!van-bc!sl
From: sl@van-bc.UUCP (pri=-10 Stuart Lynne)
Newsgroups: news.sysadmin
Subject: Re: Getting Even
Message-ID: <1951@van-bc.UUCP>
Date: 17 Nov 88 01:57:19 GMT
References: <367@execu.UUCP> <265@acheron.UUCP> <1636@pikes.Colorado.EDU> <5343@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> <10520@ncc.Nexus.CA>
Reply-To: sl@van-bc.UUCP (pri=-10 Stuart Lynne)
Organization: Wimsey Associates, Vancouver, BC.
Lines: 31

In article <10520@ncc.Nexus.CA> you write:
>In article <5343@medusa.cs.purdue.edu>, spaf@cs (Gene Spafford) writes:
>>
>Gene, we have to (at least partially) excuse him, because WE gave
>him the key! The person who needs "prosecuted" is the person who
>hardwired the "wizards" password into sendmail. For accomplaces, round
>up every sys admin who didn't change it from the default.

>Does you car insurance cover theft of contents when you leave the
>doors unlocked?

Actually in this case it's more like whether my insurance company would
cover the theft if I knew that the door was locked but it was exceedingly
easy to break past the "lock". It's more likely that the insurance company
might try and recover costs from the manufacturer of my automobile for
providing a car with locks that they knew where easy to get past.

If you could prove that the manufacturer who distributed a product knew of a
potentially expensive security hole (or should have based on reasonable man
approach) and didn't close it they could quite probably be found liable for
damages. Of course they would try and collect from the originator of the
damage if they lost. The point being that they have deeper pockets and are
much easier to track down.

Check with your local consumer protection types for information on product
liability cases. 

-- 
Stuart.Lynne@wimsey.bc.ca {ubc-cs,uunet}!van-bc!sl     Vancouver,BC,604-937-7532
-- 
Stuart.Lynne@wimsey.bc.ca {ubc-cs,uunet}!van-bc!sl     Vancouver,BC,604-937-7532