Email or username:

Password:

Forgot your password?
Stuart's posts Post Back to profile
Top-level
Andreas K

@hudsoncress @LogicalApex @calamari
I'm sure the contracts make sure that the vendor pays for all damages they caused, RIGHT?

Because if not, if it were malware, there would be at least hope that the responsible would be prosecuted at some point.

19 July at 19:35 | Wall-to-wall | Open on mastodon.social
4 comments
Frazell Thomas

@yacc143 @hudsoncress @calamari Companies put boiler plate language in their contracts. They either absolve themselves of any liability for damages or limit their liability to your license fee. Probably also includes a mandatory arbitration clause to further limit liability fallout.

I bet that’s the case here too.

😬

19 July at 19:47 | Open on thelounge.network
Hudsoncress

@LogicalApex @yacc143 @calamari what’s interesting is how we all assumed n-2 would save us from this but nobody was clear beforehand that the real risk was a policy update, not a driver version.

20 July at 0:52 | Open on infosec.exchange
Andreas K

@LogicalApex @hudsoncress @calamari Interestingly, so they sell you a product that does something, on most days what the sales prospectus says, and on some days destroys your IT, and say enjoy, you cannot sue us, and the IT crime laws don't apply to us, as you voluntary provided us with access to all your IT.

Now purely as the IT guy, that is GREAT.

20 July at 13:09 | Open on mastodon.social
Andreas K

@LogicalApex @hudsoncress @calamari
And BTW, myx current employer asked exactly for that and more, they asked in what the CEO said was IT standard boilerplate that I as the little IT contractor would make them whole not only for my mistakes, but also for all products I used or that they asked me to use.

Admittedly he crossed out this paragraph when I explained to him the issues ;)

20 July at 13:19 | Open on mastodon.social
Go Up