Comments on: OSVDB says “No exception for Symantec,” but… http://www.emailbattles.com/2006/08/10/0050908001155249003no-exception-for-symantec/ Spam, Security, Privacy, Spyware, Phishing & Viruses from the Front Lines. Fri, 30 Jul 2010 08:24:51 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4 by: BJ Gillette http://www.emailbattles.com/2006/08/10/0050908001155249003no-exception-for-symantec/#comment-1385 Fri, 11 Aug 2006 18:05:26 +0000 http://www.emailbattles.com/2006/08/10/0050908001155249003no-exception-for-symantec/#comment-1385 Hi djfh. There was no "unilateral" decision? Did you read what's on the other end of your link? Dave McKinney (Symantec) wrote that, when he went to the shorter advisories... (and I am quoting here), "<b><i>I</i> rationalized this exception to myself</b> by considering that this information would be hosted on the Symantec product security advisories page for the long term..." Stop the tape. Since when did "I rationalized" become <i>mulit-</i>lateral? In addition, McKinney admits that industry outrage <i>largely based on circulation of OSVDB's complaint</i> has stimulated a change in thinking. He's not going to do that anymore. If "bad reporting" means telling folks how OSVDB felt about what Symantec did... mea culpa. Now that we have dealt with <i>your</i> peeve, it's my turn. (And as I just posted a similar thought to a troll from a govt copyright group, I'm giving you the cut-and-paste, which is all your link-and-run is worth): <blockquote>You know, it's considered really bad form to go to somebody else's party and tell everybody to come over to your house for a piece of cake. Some of my colleagues consider that to be blog spam. You'll never get the chance to shape opinions, as long as you engage in link-and-runs, in lieu of discussion. Why? Because as every webmaster knows, most readers don't click out. Bad form. Very, very bad form.</blockquote> And do us both a favor. Pass this onto your boss, so your time will be put to better use. Hi djfh.
There was no “unilateral” decision? Did you read what’s on the other end of your link?

Dave McKinney (Symantec) wrote that, when he went to the shorter advisories… (and I am quoting here), “I rationalized this exception to myself by considering that this information would be hosted on the Symantec product security advisories page for the long term…”

Stop the tape. Since when did “I rationalized” become mulit-lateral?

In addition, McKinney admits that industry outrage largely based on circulation of OSVDB’s complaint has stimulated a change in thinking. He’s not going to do that anymore.

If “bad reporting” means telling folks how OSVDB felt about what Symantec did… mea culpa.

Now that we have dealt with your peeve, it’s my turn. (And as I just posted a similar thought to a troll from a govt copyright group, I’m giving you the cut-and-paste, which is all your link-and-run is worth):

You know, it’s considered really bad form to go to somebody else’s party and tell everybody to come over to your house for a piece of cake. Some of my colleagues consider that to be blog spam. You’ll never get the chance to shape opinions, as long as you engage in link-and-runs, in lieu of discussion. Why? Because as every webmaster knows, most readers don’t click out. Bad form. Very, very bad form.

And do us both a favor. Pass this onto your boss, so your time will be put to better use.

]]> by: djfh http://www.emailbattles.com/2006/08/10/0050908001155249003no-exception-for-symantec/#comment-1383 Fri, 11 Aug 2006 17:22:19 +0000 http://www.emailbattles.com/2006/08/10/0050908001155249003no-exception-for-symantec/#comment-1383 This is just bad reporting -- there was no "unilateral" decision. Here is a rebuttal: http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/442864/30/0/threaded This is just bad reporting — there was no “unilateral” decision. Here is a rebuttal:

http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/442864/30/0/threaded

]]>