On 07/06/17 06:14, userwithuid wrote:
> 2. Having Symantec inform their subscribers, as David mentions, is a great
> idea.
I believe Ryan has pointed out, here or elsewhere, why "must notify
customers" requirements are problematic.
Gerv
___
Inspired by David's message, 2 suggestions for the Symantec plan:
1. Mozilla - and ideally Google as well - should clearly and explicitly
communicate in the official statement on this that the "new" Symantec will
still be strictly monitored even after the current remediation plan has been
On 6/6/2017 12:10 PM, Peter Kurrasch wrote:
> Over the past months there has been much consternation over Symantec and
> the idea of "too big to fail". That is a reasonable idea but makes
> difficult the discussion of remedies for Symantec's past behavior: How
> does one impose a meaningful
Over the past months there has been much consternation over Symantec and the idea of "too big to fail". That is a reasonable idea but makes difficult the discussion of remedies for Symantec's past behavior: How does one impose a meaningful sanction without causing Symantec to fail outright since
4 matches
Mail list logo
