Re: [Full-Disclosure] Microsoft plans tighter security measures in Windows XP SP2
To: firstname.lastname@example.org Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 18:27:30 -0500
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 15:00:28 MST, Kenton Smith <email@example.com> said:
> Hopefully we can all agree that anything Microsoft can do to attempt to
> make it's O/S more secure is better than the way it is now.
No. We can't.
Consider the case of Microsoft letting Bozo the Clown do the design work and
the Three Stooges carrying out the implementation.
Remember that Microsoft is a *business*, and they don't have any responsibility
to you, the customer (since they've managed to thus far evade liability
lawsuits). They *do* however have a fiduciary responsibility to the
stockholders to maximize the company's bottom line.
As a result, if Bozo, the stooges, and enough press releases to make Gartner
give a pretty 8.5x11 glossy costs $2M, and doing it *right* costs $20M, they
will choose the cheap route unless it's demonstrable that spending $20M will
generate enough additional sales that more than another $18M in profits will
If I were a conspiracy theorist, I'd compare the probable cost of buying off
Guninsky, the @stake crew, and the pivx crew, and compare that to the cost of
actually fixing IE. Then remember that although the open-source world is
about pride and craftsmanship, Microsoft is all about the benjamins....
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored