halligas writes "You may have noticed that last month McAfeeacquired security firm Foundstone. Not to be outdone, McAfee rival Symantec has gone out a bought up their very own bunch of hackers, @Stake."
I wonder what effect this will have on the ability of either parent company to provide better security/AV protection. IMO, Symantec has a faster response to secrity threats.
Will these aquisitions reinforce this mode for symantec or result in McAfee getting a bit better?
-- If I had a real.sig, it would go here.
Good, maybe they'll hire back Dan Geer...
by
octaene
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Since they gave him the boot while licking Microsoft's arse cheeks...
l0pht0r
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I think the only thing with l0pht is, if they wanted to remain l0pht, they should have kept that aspect outside of work.
I never understood how a 'hacker group' could merge with a legit company. The members of the group maybe, but MERGE a group with a company is alittle odd. In other words, l0pht should still be around, outside of @Stake. But i'm sure that would be a conflict of interest...or something like that.
I reality, l0pht was cool, but there was plenty of other stuff out there and good for them for cashing in. All everyone seems to want to do is call them sellouts because they did something innovative and got paid for it, instead of sitting behind a desk as a sysadmin for the rest of their lives doing jack shit complaining about everyone in their league who went on a limb and took a real chance. Good for the old l0pht crew.
As far as the l0pht, good for them. Being broke all the time sucks. If you can make money and still maintain a level of integrity...i.e. walk the line between the corporate world and the world where people have integrity, and keep both feet on the integrity side, then as far as I'm concerned you're doing pretty well. From what I knew @Stake was doing that (and charging some serious fees...good for them!)
The bad though is @Stake being bought by Smantec. That is *not* a good thing. As I said, @Stake seemed to have some itegrity and Symantec...well they have *some* integrity, but not as much as they probably should. I don't see why @Stake couldn't/shouldn't continue on it's own. I think there's a line where the decision is whether to cash in or to preserve the company, and I think they crossed it. @Stake seemed to be a somewhat unique company and it seems like that is going to be lost in this. I guess we'll see.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder what effect this will have on the ability of either parent company to provide better security/AV protection. IMO, Symantec has a faster response to secrity threats.
Will these aquisitions reinforce this mode for symantec or result in McAfee getting a bit better?
If I had a real
Since they gave him the boot while licking Microsoft's arse cheeks...
I think the only thing with l0pht is, if they wanted to remain l0pht, they should have kept that aspect outside of work.
I never understood how a 'hacker group' could merge with a legit company. The members of the group maybe, but MERGE a group with a company is alittle odd. In other words, l0pht should still be around, outside of @Stake. But i'm sure that would be a conflict of interest...or something like that.
I reality, l0pht was cool, but there was plenty of other stuff out there and good for them for cashing in. All everyone seems to want to do is call them sellouts because they did something innovative and got paid for it, instead of sitting behind a desk as a sysadmin for the rest of their lives doing jack shit complaining about everyone in their league who went on a limb and took a real chance. Good for the old l0pht crew.
As far as the l0pht, good for them. Being broke all the time sucks. If you can make money and still maintain a level of integrity...i.e. walk the line between the corporate world and the world where people have integrity, and keep both feet on the integrity side, then as far as I'm concerned you're doing pretty well. From what I knew @Stake was doing that (and charging some serious fees...good for them!)
The bad though is @Stake being bought by Smantec. That is *not* a good thing. As I said, @Stake seemed to have some itegrity and Symantec...well they have *some* integrity, but not as much as they probably should. I don't see why @Stake couldn't/shouldn't continue on it's own. I think there's a line where the decision is whether to cash in or to preserve the company, and I think they crossed it. @Stake seemed to be a somewhat unique company and it seems like that is going to be lost in this. I guess we'll see.