6 ms·
I agree, it's like saying the developer of ransomware shouldn't get in trouble for making it if they just made it public instead of using it themselves. The fac
by KyleJune 4y ago
I agree, it's like saying the developer of ransomware shouldn't get in trouble for making it if they just made it public instead of using it themselves. The fact that ransomware could be used for legal purposes(pen testing maybe?) isn't really a defense when you make it easily accessible to criminals by making it public.
- pitaj 4y ago> it's like saying the developer of ransomware shouldn't get in trouble for making it if they just made it public instead of using it themselves They really shouldn't. Neither should any other security researcher who publishes exploits. Neither should any other developer of cryptographic technology.
- KyleJune 4y agoI think there is a difference between identifying an exploit exists and making a tool that makes it easy for anyone to exploit. I think if you are releasing a tool to act on security vulnerabilities it should be done so very carefully so that it can't be easily used to commit crime.
- colinmhayes 4y agoBig difference between writing a report on a vulnerability and writing malware that exploits it.
- pksebben 4y agois there? what's the difference?
- conductr 4y agoBy that reasoning, gun manufacturers are mass murderers? What about automobile manufacturers? They kill almost as many people as guns (in the US, quick google search)
- colechristensen 4y agoGuns and cars have legitimate uses. Money laundering, especially running a money laundering business which does not follow certain rules, is illegal regardless if some of the usage is legitimate.
- pksebben 4y agofrankly, I'd prefer more money laundering and less guns in the world if I had to pick one. fewer dead kids that way.