On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 11:15:45 +0300, Georgi Guninski said: > On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 02:54:49PM -0700, Eric Paynter wrote: > > Clearly the original post was either a troll or a fraud. We don't need to > > keep telling him how weak the business model is. > > you should also tell idefense how weak their business model is (check in > their advisories the difference between "clients notified" and "gone public"). > > it is strange how people aprove a bloated u$a corp, but flame semianonymous > poster :) The fact that iDefense is doing it as well doesn't make it any less weak a model. It may be quite workable when you're the only company doing it - but if another company starts doing it as well, you end up with a price war likely to take out at least one of the competitors. If nothing else, the presence of competition will likely soon tell us what the *real* value of an exploit is, as opposed to what iDefence has been paying :)
Attachment:
pgpTOpVdphBxl.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/