Re: [Full-disclosure] Third party patches, a matter of trust by n3td3v
- From: coderman <coderman@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 04:40:22 -0800
On 3/29/06, n3td3v <n3td3v@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Third party patches, a matter of trust
Why are third party patches a bad thing?
they are only a bad thing if they are not trusted and not well tested.
They force Microsoft to rush out a patch before
Q.A testing has been fully completed in the time scale
Microsoft would have initially hoped.
M$ is never forced to do anything.
a short / inadequate test cycle for the third party patch is indeed
something to consider though. (presumably anyone deploying a third
party patch is also doing much more testing than they would for a M$
tested and sanctioned patch)
Is it responsible for eEye to release a third party patch before Microsoft?
absolutely.
is it responsible for any system administrator to apply the eEye patch?
that depends on trust and testing... :)
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: [Full-disclosure] Third party patches, a matter of trust by n3td3v
- Next by Date: Re: [Full-disclosure] linux routing table ip-lookup algorithm ??
- Previous by thread: Re: [Full-disclosure] Third party patches, a matter of trust by n3td3v
- Next by thread: RE: [Full-disclosure] Third party patches, a matter of trust by n3td3v
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
