3 ms·
The argument is that companies would not fix the software, but instead release "new" products that don't have any "known" vulns. Basically, it would be cheaper
by endominus 9y ago
The argument is that companies would not fix the software, but instead release "new" products that don't have any "known" vulns. Basically, it would be cheaper to re-brand every year or two than spend the cycles to actually fix any bugs.
- yorwba 9y agoBut then any competitor could just find the old vulnerabilities in your "new" code and make them public. The re-branding effort would be completely wasted if you don't actually fix anything.