5 ms·

An auditing company is pointless if they can't find fraud on such a massive scale or recognize that something is being hidden from them.

ksk 9y ago
Thats like saying Linux is a useless project because of giant security holes that stay hidden for decades. I prefer to live in the real world, which is a lot more nuanced, and my question still stands.
- hueving 9y ago
  That's a bad analogy because the Linux project isn't dedicated to auditing the Linux project. It's like calling a home security system pointless if it doesn't detect any forced entries.
  - ksk 9y ago
    I think its a perfect analogy. >because the Linux project isn't dedicated to auditing the Linux project. Huh? Code Review? Testing? The entire point of open source especially w.r.t security is to have millions of eyes on the source. Heck with the entire world being able to audit and review the source code, people still find bugs that were introduced decades ago. >It's like calling a home security system pointless if it doesn't detect any forced entries. I'm afraid that didn't make much sense to me. Anyway, why are we focusing on irrelevant minutia or language anyway. I simply asked a commentor to show the work they've done for basing their opinion.
    - hueving 9y ago
      >Heck with the entire world being able to audit and review the source code That's irrelevant when we are talking about a company being paid specifically to audit something. The entire world is able to send me food as well, but I don't get mad when it doesn't except for when I pay someone to do it. >I simply asked a commentor to show the work they've done And it was a dumb question. An auditing company that failed to detect massive fraud either willfully ignored it to sellout or was too incompetent to recognize it.
      - ksk 9y ago
        >That's irrelevant when we are talking about a company being paid specifically to audit something. The entire world is able to send me food as well, but I don't get mad when it doesn't except for when I pay someone to do it. Linux is developed almost exclusively by people who get paid for their work. Billions of dollars of real money has been poured by IBM, Intel, RH, etc. You are thoroughly confused my friend. Lets stick with the original point. > An auditing company that failed to detect massive fraud either willfully ignored it to sellout or was too incompetent to recognize it. So explain how they audited the firm, explain which data they had access to and how they were incompetent You can't define your way out of providing evidence. An auditor does X. They couldn't do X, therefore they were incompetent. That schoolyard logic doesn't work. People will ask you to backup your opinion. Its completely fine to say I don't know...
        hueving 9y ago
        >Linux is developed almost exclusively by people who get paid for their work. Billions of dollars of real money has been poured by IBM, Intel, RH, etc. You are thoroughly confused my friend. Lets stick with the original point. What aren't you getting? Developing is not auditing. KPMG wasn't paid to do banking, they were just paid to audit. >So explain how they audited the firm, explain which data they had access to and how they were incompetent As an auditing firm you either demand enough data to do a real audit or you walk away from the deal. So either they didn't have enough data or they were sell-outs rubber stamping it. That's just how auditing works. >People will ask you to backup your opinion. Its completely fine to say I don't know... It's not an opinion. It's literally what they are paid to do. If I pay for a hamburger and someone just gives me a pile of sand, any bystander can tell that the seller didn't do their job. If you want more evidence of KPMG incompetence, check out this: https://seekingalpha.com/news/3344058-ge-urged-proxy-advisors-dump-kpmg-auditor-109-years https://seekingalpha.com/news/3344058-ge-urged-proxy-advisor...
        ksk 9y ago
        Sorry, don't want to waste my time any further. Its obvious to me that you have zero actual evidence, and no knowledge of what was done, or what was overlooked. Goodbye.

ksk 9y ago

Thats like saying Linux is a useless project because of giant security holes that stay hidden for decades. I prefer to live in the real world, which is a lot more nuanced, and my question still stands.

hueving 9y ago
That's a bad analogy because the Linux project isn't dedicated to auditing the Linux project. It's like calling a home security system pointless if it doesn't detect any forced entries.
- ksk 9y ago
  I think its a perfect analogy. >because the Linux project isn't dedicated to auditing the Linux project. Huh? Code Review? Testing? The entire point of open source especially w.r.t security is to have millions of eyes on the source. Heck with the entire world being able to audit and review the source code, people still find bugs that were introduced decades ago. >It's like calling a home security system pointless if it doesn't detect any forced entries. I'm afraid that didn't make much sense to me. Anyway, why are we focusing on irrelevant minutia or language anyway. I simply asked a commentor to show the work they've done for basing their opinion.
  - hueving 9y ago
    >Heck with the entire world being able to audit and review the source code That's irrelevant when we are talking about a company being paid specifically to audit something. The entire world is able to send me food as well, but I don't get mad when it doesn't except for when I pay someone to do it. >I simply asked a commentor to show the work they've done And it was a dumb question. An auditing company that failed to detect massive fraud either willfully ignored it to sellout or was too incompetent to recognize it.
    - ksk 9y ago
      >That's irrelevant when we are talking about a company being paid specifically to audit something. The entire world is able to send me food as well, but I don't get mad when it doesn't except for when I pay someone to do it. Linux is developed almost exclusively by people who get paid for their work. Billions of dollars of real money has been poured by IBM, Intel, RH, etc. You are thoroughly confused my friend. Lets stick with the original point. > An auditing company that failed to detect massive fraud either willfully ignored it to sellout or was too incompetent to recognize it. So explain how they audited the firm, explain which data they had access to and how they were incompetent You can't define your way out of providing evidence. An auditor does X. They couldn't do X, therefore they were incompetent. That schoolyard logic doesn't work. People will ask you to backup your opinion. Its completely fine to say I don't know...
      - hueving 9y ago
        >Linux is developed almost exclusively by people who get paid for their work. Billions of dollars of real money has been poured by IBM, Intel, RH, etc. You are thoroughly confused my friend. Lets stick with the original point. What aren't you getting? Developing is not auditing. KPMG wasn't paid to do banking, they were just paid to audit. >So explain how they audited the firm, explain which data they had access to and how they were incompetent As an auditing firm you either demand enough data to do a real audit or you walk away from the deal. So either they didn't have enough data or they were sell-outs rubber stamping it. That's just how auditing works. >People will ask you to backup your opinion. Its completely fine to say I don't know... It's not an opinion. It's literally what they are paid to do. If I pay for a hamburger and someone just gives me a pile of sand, any bystander can tell that the seller didn't do their job. If you want more evidence of KPMG incompetence, check out this: https://seekingalpha.com/news/3344058-ge-urged-proxy-advisors-dump-kpmg-auditor-109-years https://seekingalpha.com/news/3344058-ge-urged-proxy-advisor...
        ksk 9y ago
        Sorry, don't want to waste my time any further. Its obvious to me that you have zero actual evidence, and no knowledge of what was done, or what was overlooked. Goodbye.