Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar

[Mart van de Wege]

"amicus_curious" <ACDC@sti.net> writes:

> "Mart van de Wege" <mvdwege_public@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
> 86wsbic07e.fsf@gareth.avalon.lan">news:86wsbic07e.fsf@gareth.avalon.lan...
>> "amicus_curious" <ACDC@sti.net> writes:
>>
>>> "David Kastrup" <dak@gnu.org> wrote in message
>>> 85r61r4nvu.fsf@lola.goethe.zz">news:85r61r4nvu.fsf@lola.goethe.zz...
>>>> "amicus_curious" <ACDC@sti.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> If it fails early, it gets returned to the store or to the
>>>>> manufacturer for credit.
>>>>
>>>> If your whole computing centre gets compromised because a packet logger
>>>> could be inserted into the router, return to the store is your least
>>>> problem.  Being able to determine possible scope of a security breach is
>>>> certainly important.
>>>>
>>> You create a whole lot of hypothetical situations, but people buy
>>> these things at Sam's Club for $35 and they work just fine.  What
>>> compromise has there ever been that allowed someone to put a "packet
>>> logger" into the firmware of such a thing?  Who would bother?
>>>
>> Spammers who like to build botnets out of domestic PCs for example.
>>
> Do you know of any instance where the botnet was built by compromising
> the user's router firmware?  That is pretty farfetched. 
>
Yes, and executable e-mails were once considered to be 'purely theoretical'.

I'm sorry, but threat evaluation is just a *tad* more than 'is this
being exploited yet?'

Mart

-- 
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.