Advertisement
Front, Kernel, Security, Distributions, Development. See your byline here on LWN.net.
| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Very unlikelyVery unlikelyPosted Dec 3, 2003 21:09 UTC (Wed) by proski (subscriber, #104)In reply to: Gentoo rsync server compromised by einstein Parent article: Gentoo rsync server compromised I don't think a Fortune 500 company would do anything illegal for PR purposes. The implications of being caught are overwhelming compared to the gain from the FUD campaign, even if multiplied by the probabilities (search Google for "mathematical expectation"). Large companies are very risk averse. If they break the law, they are dealing with billions of dollars. And it's never obvious for competitiors. Think Worldcom.
(Log in to post comments)
Very likely Posted Dec 3, 2003 21:40 UTC (Wed) by allesfresser (subscriber, #216) [Link] When a corporation has been prosecuted by the U.S. government and gotten away with a slap on the wrist (if that), why should they be worried about something that they know would never be prosecuted by anybody, especially if they have a proxy do it for them?Microsoft is plenty arrogant enough to do something like this. I'm not accusing them of doing it (since I have no direct evidence to that effect), but if it turned out that there were some communications from someone up there in Redmond that had something to do with getting the ball rolling with these attacks, I wouldn't be even a tiny bit surprised. But of course, I doubt we'll ever find out for sure.
Very likely Posted Dec 3, 2003 22:49 UTC (Wed) by piman (subscriber, #8957) [Link] There is a large difference, both legally and from a business sense, between abusing a monopoly and repeatedly committing server cracks. The former gets you fines or broken up (in both cases, you still make money, often more money); the latter gets you shut down.The traditional way for Microsoft to attack a competitor (and a much safer way) is to pump millions of dollars of marketing into a negative publicity campaign -- and they've had some success doing that via SCO recently. I don't see why they'd turn to something as stupid as server cracks. This is one of the worst conspiracy theories ever.
Very unlikely Posted Dec 3, 2003 22:40 UTC (Wed) by valiant (guest, #17373) [Link] I too believe that and Microsoft involvement is highly unlikely, i know MS has a flare for courtroom theaterics but this is a whole different animal that MS would not dare to do given its current DOJ re-evaluation of the antitrust case. No i am sure MS is far clear of this one and any like it.
|
|
||||||||||||