At this point Symantec has probably come to the conclusion that their source code is compromised. I don't think it’s possible for them to assume that anon won't use the source for themselves. The whole thing is a sting operation. If it wasn’t then Symantec’s future is dependent on an agreement that has no way of being verified. Anon probably knows this too and there just having a laugh.
Yes but there are probably lots of code blocks that are used throughout their entire software line. Like how they establish secure connections between the client software and the update server.
Still, the code is worthless for anyone if your product is secure. And I would imagine that product by security company would be secure.
Antivirus software might be something different as you might learn how to trick it. But "remote desktop"? It doesn't require any "security by obscurity".
> On Friday, January 27, 2012, Symantec released a patch that eliminates known vulnerabilities affecting customers using pcAnywhere 12.0 and pcAnywhere 12.1.
> By this logic, wouldn't you also expect the storage of the source code to be secured?
No, developers have to have access to the code and they can just steal it. And this wasn't even the case. If I read correctly, the code was leaked by 3rd party (some India state agency) which had it for some sort of security review.
I would say no. Although I might be mistaken as I don't know what exactly is the application capable of. But from the brief description I think it doesn't contain any magic; something that competitor would love to see. The only benefit I see for competitors is the bad press.
Not if Symantec has any proof that they've touched it. You're legally screwed if you touch this code thanks to any combination of patents, trade secrets, or even good old-fashioned copyright violation (just because the source is out there doesn't mean you can use it).
I think this has to do with large companies resenting the fact open source developers spend their time making a free eco system better instead of improving their own frameworks for free.
I understand that JavaScript has its limitations, and Google tried to address this with their own language Dart. But this boils down to, you have a 100 billion dollar company serving 1 billion searches a day so you have different scalability issues than I do. But that’s not my problem.
With the current technologies like Node, MongoDB, Reids, etc… I can build a 1 billion dollar startup without the same scalability issues that a 100 billion dollar company has.
I would be quite happy to have a these scalability issues once I have a 100 billion dollar company then it will be my problem. But until then, getting a start-up up and running is ridiculously hard, the last thing I need is companies generating truckloads of cash putting their development issues on to open source developers.
Unfortunately this seems to be common in the UK. If you go to http://www.laptopsdirect.co.uk they do the same thing. When you add a laptop to your basket they add a “Restore and Recovery Disk” to your order for £15 (~$24) even though laptops come with this CD sealed in the box or you can create it from an image file on the laptop. When I questioned them via telephone they quickly backed off and took it off the order.
The whole point of this lawsuit is that most manufacturers don't provide recovery disks anymore; hidden recovery partitions are the norm these days.
Comet apparently took it upon themselves to burn these disks for their customers, and this seems to be what Laptops Direct are doing as well, albeit charging for the privilege. If Laptops Direct have an agreement with Microsoft, then fair enough.
The average computer user won't think to burn a recovery disk until it's too late, hence the conundrum.
Unfortunately this seems to be common in the UK. If you go to Laptopsdirect co uk they do the same thing. When you add a laptop to your basket they add a “Restore and Recovery Disk” to your order for £15 (~$24) even though laptops come with this CD sealed in the box or you can create it from an image file on the laptop. When I questioned them via telephone they quickly backed off and took it off the order.
