All Things Microsoft > Microsoft as a Company

the M$ worm saga continues

(1/1)

raptor:
http://eeye.com/html/Research/Flash/AL20030125.html

eeye digital securtiy explains the attacks in full detail.    :cool:

[ January 27, 2003: Message edited by: raptor ]

raptor:
Microsoft not prepared? huh.

http://news.com.com/2009-1001-982203.html?tag=fd_lede1_hed


Bad scene, Bad scene.

Pretty sad microsoft can't write patches for themselves, let alone their beloved   :eek:   clients    :confused:  

[ January 27, 2003: Message edited by: raptor ]

[ January 27, 2003: Message edited by: raptor ]

raptor:
:-P.

Calum:

quote:from news.com.com:
 "This shows that the notion of patching doesn't work," said Bruce Schneier, chief technology officer for network protection firm Counterpane Internet Security. "Publicly, they are saying it's not our fault, because you should have patched. But Microsoft's own actions show that you can't reasonably expect people to be able to keep up with patches."

For years, system administrators have complained about their inability to keep up with the steady stream of patches that have poured out of Microsoft and other software companies. In October, the software giant even raised the bar for what's considered a "critical" vulnerability, so that administrators wouldn't have to deal with so many patches that seemingly required immediate attention.
--- End quote ---

is this really the case? is the notion of patching really flawed? i thought it was a little telling that they accused the 'notion of patching' rather than just come right out and say that microsoft's shitty products just suck ass, end of story. You'll notice that this guy goes on to say that he doesn't apply the latest patches becuase they have a habit of breaking his system. is this usually the case? or does this only happen with microsoft software i wonder?

Navigation

[0] Message Index