5 ms·
Why not? it's a one time expense that helps you launch. If throwing money at a problems solves, that's rarely a hard argument to make. If you throw engineers
by jopsen 5y ago
Why not? it's a one time expense that helps you launch.
If throwing money at a problems solves, that's rarely a hard argument to make.
If you throw engineers at a problem it might get solved, or it might not. Hiring an engineer to work on something is a high risk investment.
side note: Mozilla does have great engineers, when I was there a few years ago the security was also very competent. But it's probably not the same as getting specialized consultants.
- megous 5y agoIt's 1800 yearly subscriptions at $110k, and that's assuming $5/month is pure profit, which it is not. So this one off audit would have to hit them, say, 6000 extra 1 year subscriptions to pay itself off, let alone turn profit. Sounds like a stretch. It would certainly be hard to measure. On that note, how many customers do these public customer oriented VPNs have, typically? 1k's? 10k's? More?
- pilsetnieks 5y agoOr just one juicy corporate subscription.
- karaterobot 5y agoNot sure about that. The major VPNs have similar (not identical) functionality and price. They're competing on the perception that they are more secure than others. In that light, having a passing security audit by a reputable company would be table stakes for a lot of customers. As noted by another commenter already, not having one could also be a deal-breaker on a vendor security assessment by a big company, too.
- thayne 5y agoIt's not a one time cost. For it to be valuable, you need to perform additional audits periodically.