Re: Why not patch all windows and not just legal copies


"imhotep" <inhotep@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:k-OdnXR46PnGNAjZnZ2dnUVZ_rWdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Roger "The Spin Doctor" Abell [MVP] wrote:


"Michael Davis (Comcast.Net)" <netguru@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:OoSQAQukGHA.1640@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I agree completely,

This topic needs more dialog and not less, the logic is not flawed and
the purpose is clear. Security is about reducing attack surfaces,
getting
secure and keeping secure. having a resting pool of rootkitted bots in
the pool THAT CANT BE PATCHED BY THE AVERAGE OWNER with us just makes
"some" of us a lot of money and causes a "lot" of us pain and suffering.


The reasoning is flawed, not the logic. The line of reasoning is not
taking
all aspects of the realtity into account. In a reduced proposition
universe I can reach conclusions that seem perfectly correct, but which
fail to match the realities of a completely described universe.

...take you meds Roger you sound like a person desperately trying to be
more
smarter than they are....


and you are worse than rude
your comments made from a vacuum (of information about me, my
motives, or else just in your head) are way off base

You seem to be considering a static state. So many machines is such a
condition with such a result. The reality is that you are looking at a
mere
shadow, a snapshot that is today. You need to apply temporal logic and
considerations appropriate to such. The installed base of Windows
machines is an ecology, a constantly changing population consisting of
examples from many, many phenotypes, some not yet emerged. You
are only looking at what is and reasoning to what could be; but you
need to look at what would be, under different constrains (like do or
do not offer patches to zombied ripoff code) and reason over the relative
merits and demerits of the different results.

...blah, blah, blah (read above)


what's the problem - beyond the size of your comprehension
disabling the ability to intelligibly comment ?

Think of that next time you are working on a system that has been hit by
:exploit next" or DDOS attack, or Uber SPAM that blows thru that very
expensive anti-SPAM system you just talked the CIO into buying.


Your estimation, ostensibly of my world, misses the mark. I have run to
Windows infrastructure of some fair scale naked on the network and
find that skill (or lack of) in implementation the most important factor.
For user systems, user practices are also a major factor.
Both of those are at least as important as code flaws relative to the
longterm health maintainability of a system.

Here is the flaw in your logic. You are trying to link two different
situations together. 1) Microsoft trying to get people to stop running
illegal copies of their software. 2) Getting Microsoft to allow patching
of
copies of their software so as to reduce the DOSes, botted systems, etc
that unpatched pcs cause.


Actually, I was not attempting to link those.
1 is not my concern, nor do I feel 2 is any longer a cause to which I align
You reading skills must have suffered a setback.

What makes you think that a person running a illegal copied version of
their
software would buy a copy when they get infected instead of, well,
rebuilding the pc again, and again...


Did I ever say I felt that would be the case ? Where ?
I do feel the illicit copies, if convenient and hence of ever growing
presence,
would soon become the vehicle by which machines were made into zombies
from their very birth.
Anyway, rebuilding again and again, or deleting and recopying a VM
over and over would get old - one would even get a Mac rather than
play that game very long.



Now I don't care about #1 (that is Microsoft's problem). However, #2
affects
everyone. Windows users and non Windows users. Home users and corporate
users....Allowing all people (legal copies or not) to patch their systems
will only help to reduce the amount of 'botted systems and DOSes and the
problems that come from DOSes and botted systems...it is time for
Microsoft
to be responsible (since it is their crappy code that causes it in the
first place!)


As I believe I have attempted to clue you into, it may reduce that in the
short run, but at the cost of a much worse ecosystem in the longer term.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: John Lott Stop endangering employees
    ... betweentheeyes wrote: ... > Should the following reasoning, that was developed some time ago, apply? ... > "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and ... You're such a dipshit Rosin. ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: firewall securing outgoing traffic?
    ... Windows security model, if properly used ... > viruses from windows users that don't even know they are spreading such ... No system is secure by itself, ... OTOH, I know a lot of users, who had a lot of problems with their Linux ...
    (comp.os.linux.security)
  • Re: VISTA more secure than OSX
    ... likely to be hit with malware than are Windows users is a pretty big deal. ... miniscule < 5% marketshare of course the Mac is going to be more secure. ... the *only* reason, others want to pretend it is not a reason at all. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: VISTA more secure than OSX
    ... likely to be hit with malware than are Windows users is a pretty big deal. ... miniscule < 5% marketshare of course the Mac is going to be more secure. ... the *only* reason, others want to pretend it is not a reason at all. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • RH9, Sendmail, openssl and Eudora
    ... I support a large number of windows users, ... secure imap for the both of these user groups. ... is setting up STARTTLS for the Eudora users. ...
    (RedHat)