6 ms·

Yeah seriously, their turnover in 2010 was $6 Billion. I mean if your gonna take all that risk ask for a least $50 million.

rplnt 15y ago
It was just for one product, pcAnywhere.
- Ctech237 15y ago
  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.
  - rplnt 15y ago
    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".
    - djtriptych 15y ago
      The source is still pretty valuable to a competitor right?
      - rplnt 15y ago
        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.
      - ConstantineXVI 15y ago
        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).
    - lambersley 15y ago
      "..product by security company would be secure" By this logic, wouldn't you also expect the storage of the source code to be secured? In my mind, security implies all forms; physical, logical, in-transit, at rest, etc
      - rplnt 15y ago
        > 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.
    - onedognight 15y ago
      > Still, the code is worthless for anyone if your product is secure. And I would imagine that product by security company would be secure. Actually they had known vulnerabilities, but they didn't think it worth their time to fix them until their code was to be released. http://www.symantec.com/theme.jsp?themeid=anonymous-code-claims http://www.symantec.com/theme.jsp?themeid=anonymous-code-cla... > On Friday, January 27, 2012, Symantec released a patch that eliminates known vulnerabilities affecting customers using pcAnywhere 12.0 and pcAnywhere 12.1.
      - scoot 15y ago
        Poorly worded that's all, after all, you can't fix unknown vulnerabilities.
stef25 15y ago
Bit trickier to send or receive that through channels like Liberty Reserve.

rplnt 15y ago

It was just for one product, pcAnywhere.

Ctech237 15y ago
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.
- rplnt 15y ago
  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".
  - djtriptych 15y ago
    The source is still pretty valuable to a competitor right?
    - rplnt 15y ago
      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.
    - ConstantineXVI 15y ago
      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).
  - lambersley 15y ago
    "..product by security company would be secure" By this logic, wouldn't you also expect the storage of the source code to be secured? In my mind, security implies all forms; physical, logical, in-transit, at rest, etc
    - rplnt 15y ago
      > 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.
  - onedognight 15y ago
    > Still, the code is worthless for anyone if your product is secure. And I would imagine that product by security company would be secure. Actually they had known vulnerabilities, but they didn't think it worth their time to fix them until their code was to be released. http://www.symantec.com/theme.jsp?themeid=anonymous-code-claims http://www.symantec.com/theme.jsp?themeid=anonymous-code-cla... > On Friday, January 27, 2012, Symantec released a patch that eliminates known vulnerabilities affecting customers using pcAnywhere 12.0 and pcAnywhere 12.1.
    - scoot 15y ago
      Poorly worded that's all, after all, you can't fix unknown vulnerabilities.

stef25 15y ago

Bit trickier to send or receive that through channels like Liberty Reserve.