[SNIP]
>
> Would you blame OpenBSD if a user got hacked because he hadn't bothered to
> patch?
>
> I'm not arguing that Microsoft has done the right thing or even that their
> OS is secure. (It isn't, and I refuse to use it as a server unless forced
> to. I prefer to use FreeBSD whenever possible.) I'm arguing that you
> can't blame Microsoft for malicious code that takes advantage of weaknesses
> for which they have already issued patches, sometimes 12 months in advance
> of an outbreak. *That* is a problem directly attributable to users.
>
> What you're trying to argue is that, if OS vendors would simply do the
> right thing from the start, users would be protected despite their lack of
> patching, and I am saying that is preposterous. *No* OS is so secure that
> you can simply leave it on the Internet, never patch it, and still be
> secure.
>
Wasn't it you that made the argument during the msblaster episode that
patching was a dead horse, that most env's of significatnly sized
userbase were understaffed for the NUMEROUS patches that faced windows
admins at the time and cuurrently? <perhaps I'm thinking it was you and
in fact it was someone else> Either the arguement was false then and
windows admins were and remain just plain lazy, or the argument was/is
true and there's a problem within the core OS offered up from redmond...
Thanks,
Ron DuFresne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Cutting the space budget really restores my faith in humanity. It
eliminates dreams, goals, and ideals and lets us get straight to the
business of hate, debauchery, and self-annihilation." -- Johnny Hart
***testing, only testing, and damn good at it too!***
OK, so you're a Ph.D. Just don't touch anything.
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
