Re: M$ Backs out of releasing a security patch...
From: Imhotep (Imhotep_at_nospam.net)
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 14:04:18 -0400
Hairy One Kenobi wrote:
> "Imhotep" <Imhotep@nospam.net> wrote in message
>> Hairy One Kenobi wrote:
>> > "Imhotep" <Imhotep@nospam.net> wrote in message
>> > news:c-qdnda426jXQLjeRVn-hA@adelphia.com...
>> >> "Other than saying it planned to release a solitary fix in last week's
>> >> advanced bulletin, Microsoft is yet to disclose any details of the
>> > security
>> >> bug other than to describe it as "critical". "
>> >> http://www.securityfocus.com/news/11310
>> >> Could this be the patch for outlook and IE? If so, the World already
>> >> knows about it. Reference the original article here.
>> >> "The bug affects default installations of Outlook, Outlook Express and
>> >> Internet Explorer on Windows 2000 and XP Service Pack 1. EEye said
>> >> that additional versions of Windows may also be affected."
>> >> http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2142042/unpatched-bugs-ms-outlook
>> > Ah. So "adequate testing" is a /bad/ thing?
>> Did anyone say it was?
> Erm.. you did, I think, when you had a go at 'em for not releasing
> something that (presumably) failed testing.
I think you assumed some things. You know what they say about assuming...In
stead try read the post literally. It was meant to warm people about a
security hole that MS people are STILL vulnerable for.
>> > I assume an alpha tester threw it out as conflicting with what used to
>> > called a "layered product" ;o)
>> Did MS ever make a true "layer" product?
> Thought you had a VMS background? Hence the smiley... it means "anything
> that runs on top of the OS". One example would be Microsoft Office (which,
> rumour has it, is run by several people, worldwide)
Although Windows NT was designed with VMS as its model. The two are very
different. VMS was a stable reliable OS and, well, windows is just not and
never has been....