本文選題：信息安全 + 標(biāo)準(zhǔn)軟件　； 參考：《華中科技大學(xué)》2013年博士論文

【摘要】：信息安全的核心在于軟件安全,但軟件存在漏洞已成為常態(tài),直接導(dǎo)致了病毒和惡意程序的橫行。解決軟件漏洞問(wèn)題,促進(jìn)軟件安全,成為信息時(shí)代的要?jiǎng)?wù)。 本文首先分析了解決軟件漏洞問(wèn)題的制度需求。由于軟件安全檸檬市場(chǎng)和公地悲劇現(xiàn)象的存在,導(dǎo)致市場(chǎng)失靈,漏洞軟件充斥市場(chǎng)。雖然建立新的市場(chǎng)機(jī)制是解決市場(chǎng)失靈問(wèn)題的途徑之一,但是建立軟件漏洞市場(chǎng)的嘗試由于其固有的障礙難以取得成功。通過(guò)對(duì)軟件市場(chǎng)運(yùn)行的模型分析我們可以看出,賦予軟件公司一定的法律責(zé)任,可以比較好的促進(jìn)軟件質(zhì)量的提高,軟件漏洞問(wèn)題需要軟件漏洞責(zé)任制度來(lái)解決。 其次,闡述了對(duì)漏洞軟件適用瑕疵擔(dān)保責(zé)任的可能性和基本原則。軟件公司應(yīng)當(dāng)對(duì)其軟件漏洞承擔(dān)瑕疵擔(dān)保責(zé)任,雖然在實(shí)踐中,各軟件在其格式合同條款中均設(shè)定有免責(zé)或者限制責(zé)任的條款,但如果這些條款符合法定條件,可被認(rèn)定為無(wú)效。如果軟件存在漏洞,買受人可以向開(kāi)發(fā)商請(qǐng)求修補(bǔ),如果因?yàn)殚_(kāi)發(fā)商的瑕疵履行使買受人受損,還可以請(qǐng)求損失賠償,但該損失賠償受到可預(yù)見(jiàn)原則的限制。 再則,探討了對(duì)于漏洞軟件適用嚴(yán)格責(zé)任的必要性和可能性,論述了漏洞軟件產(chǎn)品責(zé)任的基本問(wèn)題。如果軟件中存在漏洞,即存在安全缺陷,若對(duì)合法用戶造成了損害,且該損害與軟件漏洞又存在因果關(guān)系,則軟件開(kāi)發(fā)商應(yīng)當(dāng)承擔(dān)嚴(yán)格責(zé)任,應(yīng)當(dāng)賠償用戶的財(cái)產(chǎn)損失,若軟件漏洞導(dǎo)致了用戶隱私的泄露,則還應(yīng)當(dāng)賠償精神損失。如果軟件漏洞尚未造成損害,則用戶有權(quán)要求開(kāi)發(fā)商對(duì)其進(jìn)行修補(bǔ)。 最后,闡述了完善軟件漏洞合同責(zé)任和構(gòu)建軟件漏洞產(chǎn)品責(zé)任的建議,并提出了完善軟件漏洞公益訴訟制度的相關(guān)建議,建議給予消費(fèi)者協(xié)會(huì)提起公益訴訟的原告主體資格。
[Abstract]:The core of information security lies in software security, but the existence of vulnerabilities in software has become the norm, which directly leads to the spread of viruses and malicious programs.To solve the problem of software vulnerability and to promote software security has become an important task in the information age.This paper first analyzes the system requirements to solve the software vulnerability problem.Due to the existence of the lemon market and the tragedy of the common land, the market is out of order and the vulnerability software is flooding the market.Although the establishment of a new market mechanism is one of the ways to solve the problem of market failure, the attempt to establish a software vulnerability market is difficult to succeed because of its inherent obstacles.Through the analysis of the model of software market operation we can see that giving certain legal responsibility to software companies can better promote the improvement of software quality. Software vulnerabilities need to be solved by software vulnerability liability system.Secondly, it expounds the possibility and basic principle of applying defect guarantee liability to vulnerability software.Software companies should assume liability for defects in their software vulnerabilities. Although in practice, each software has a clause of exemption or limitation in the terms of its format contract, if these terms meet the statutory requirements,May be deemed invalid.If there is a flaw in the software, the buyer can ask the developer for repair, and if the buyer is injured because of the developer's defective performance, he can also claim compensation for the loss, but the compensation for the loss is limited by the principle of predictability.Furthermore, the necessity and possibility of applying strict liability to vulnerability software are discussed, and the basic problems of vulnerability software product liability are discussed.If there is a vulnerability in the software, that is, there is a security defect, and if the damage is caused to the legitimate user and there is a causal relationship between the damage and the software vulnerability, the software developer shall bear strict liability and shall compensate the user for the loss of property.If the software vulnerability leads to the disclosure of user privacy, it should also compensate for moral losses.If the software vulnerability has not been damaged, the user has the right to ask the developer to fix it.Finally, the paper expounds the suggestions of perfecting the liability of software vulnerability contract and constructing the liability of software vulnerability product, and puts forward some relevant suggestions to perfect the system of software vulnerability public interest litigation, and proposes to give the plaintiff subject qualification of consumer association to file public interest lawsuit.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華中科技大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號(hào)】：TP309;F49

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 張俊巖;;違約責(zé)任及其損害賠償范圍研究[J];北京科技大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2006年02期

2 楊國(guó)平,梁三利;論生產(chǎn)者的產(chǎn)品責(zé)任抗辯事由[J];商業(yè)研究;2003年15期

3 史新;;違約責(zé)任損害賠償研究[J];長(zhǎng)春理工大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2006年04期

4 吳斌;產(chǎn)品缺陷的矯正及其經(jīng)濟(jì)分析[J];重慶商學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2000年04期

5 楊代雄 ,于卉 ,邢丹;論產(chǎn)品缺陷的認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2000年05期

6 夏鳳英;試論違約責(zé)任方式的競(jìng)合適用[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2001年10期

7 廖耘平,吳永平;論對(duì)產(chǎn)品責(zé)任損害賠償范圍的拓展[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2003年03期

8 肖瀟;論產(chǎn)品責(zé)任中的責(zé)任競(jìng)合現(xiàn)象[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2003年06期

9 張念念;論軟件的質(zhì)量責(zé)任[J];法律適用;2004年03期

10 趙康;論服務(wù)質(zhì)量侵權(quán)責(zé)任[J];法商研究(中南政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào));2000年02期

，

本文編號(hào)：1746052