5 ms·
This is probably why they keep repeating that their customer is the government. You could probably sell Exxon's security vulnerabilities to the government and
by shasta 15y ago
This is probably why they keep repeating that their customer is the government. You could probably sell Exxon's security vulnerabilities to the government and demand $N dollars from them to show them how to fix the problem. It's advertising the vulnerability with posts like this that seems most questionable (similar to extortion) to me.
- _delirium 15y agoYeah, that's the part that seemed odd to me as well, though someone knowledgeable in this area of law (at least in the better-settled offline case) could give some better info. I believe it'd be okay, and probably actually happens, for a private security consultant to do threat assessments for a (non-criminal) client, e.g. prepare a report for DHS on the security of U.S. oil installations. But it seems like they'd be crossing a line if they posted a press release trumpeting a major vulnerability they discovered, mentioning by name which company and approximately where the vulnerability was located, but then refused to disclose it to the company in question. I'm not sure how much it survives, but I believe there was traditionally even a common-law "duty to warn" if you were aware of significant risks to someone's person or property.
- chopsueyar 15y agoGoogle could easily sue them into oblivion for libel. They would be forced to reveal the exploit during proceedings to prove their innocence.
- shpxnvz 15y agoI'd imagine that depends on which government you're talking about. Seems like selling the info to a foreign government could be treading into "espionage" territory.
- chopsueyar 15y agoWhich government(s)?