Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.os.vms
Subject: Re: Americans: that clueless cretin you elected just killed the CVE
 program :-(
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2025 00:56:31 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 57
Message-ID: <vtuorf$2m6u3$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vto74r$25guk$1@dont-email.me> <vttnam$36p3b$1@dont-email.me>
 <vtu1a9$2k6$1@reader1.panix.com> <vtun10$1e6l$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2025 01:56:32 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5887485d9dce7a02304bb9ac5da7f90a";
	logging-data="2825155"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19ECGER7zoFKRAYmBMoILEz"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:m/zpBIbw5Z3nADjRSgnXA36dAPA=
In-Reply-To: <vtun10$1e6l$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 3424

On 19/04/2025 00:25, chrisq wrote:
> On 4/18/25 18:14, Dan Cross wrote:
>> In article <vttnam$36p3b$1@dont-email.me>, chrisq  
>> <devzero@nospam.com> wrote:
>>> On 4/16/25 13:17, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>> Read for yourself:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.theregister.com/2025/04/16/homeland_security_funding_for_cve/
>>>>
>>>> Of course, now that I have called him a clueless cretin in public means
>>>> I am now unlikely to be allowed into the US (_if_ I ever wanted to 
>>>> go now).
>>>>
>>>> BTW, Mr Orange, on a related subject, you don't build a chip 
>>>> manufacturing
>>>> plant within a year or so.
>>>
>>> Why doesn't industry fund it, and why do so many people think the
>>> taxpayer should fund everything ?.
>>
>> Because it is in the vital interest of national security, for
>> one.
>>
>>          - Dan C.
> 
> You really think that government oversight over the process of computer
> security and bug fixes will improve the outcome ?, I have my doubts.
> It would make sense to have computer security specialists represented
> from the security services, but typical government employees do not have
> the required knowledgebase, or awareness, to make any difference. If
> the governemnt pay for it, they will want to have influence on what
> is a technical process, ideally free of politics.
> 
> Here in the UK, the majority of government employees tend to be from
> arts, history, or ppe backgrounds, zero industry or business
> experience, risk averse, and change resistant, resulting in little
> or nothing getting done for years. They just get in the way.
> 
> It's an industry problem, let them sort it out, and pay for it.
> 

"Industry" never pays for anything, its the customer that pays. I wonder 
who is the biggest single customer for IT is, it wouldn't be the US 
Government by any chance would it?

By the time the suppliers pass on the costs, plus their inevitable 
mark-up that every supplier puts on everything they sell, the government 
might just end up paying more...

.... mind you much government cost saving works like that, eliminate 
something thats easy to measure and replace it with something thats 
obscure, not easy to measure, so much easier for the costs to spread..

> Chris
> 

Dave