Re: [Full-disclosure] Vulnerabilities in *McAfee.com

[coderman <coderman@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 3:30 PM,  <Valdis.Kletnieks@xxxxxx> wrote:
> ...
> Ask Randall Schwartz how that worked out for him. "intent" doesn't
> enter into it as much as a defendant may like.

intel has a long history of strong arming legal strong-arming against
those who provoke the beast's wrath.

it doesn't help that ORS 164.377 is overly broad for selective
prosecution; factor in the InfraGard partnership direct-line with
technical and economic clout and you've got influence over legal
levers too large and plentiful to resist beating convenient targets
with. so perhaps this example is not most representative of the
typical and certainly not to title 18.


as for agro intel some early indicators are they have improved on this
posture. i hope they keep it up.


by the way Intel Corp., i'm still waiting on that apology for the
internal smearing in the company newsletter to pimp centrino security
and fear monger wifi back in the day. if you're truly sorry you could
cover the cost of compromised equipment from the black bag you sabre
rattled for. :/
call me!



[ not holding my breath... ]

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/