>Heald, Tim wrote:
>>
>> Since the source code leaked, and there is no review, bug or patch
>> process in place, and since we have all seen how slow M$ can be to respond
>> to vulnerabilities, often times needing 2 or 3 patches before they
>> actually fix a problem, I can see why people think this
"
* Profanity, partner's name hidden in leaked Microsoft code - It
makes it easier" on hackers, said Ken Dunham, Malicious Code
Intelligence Director for security firm iDefense. "Instead of trying
blindly to get in, now you can just go in, see the lines of code, run
it, test it." Dunham and others
Which 3% is it?
-Gel
-Original Message-
From: Jochem van Dieten [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Not really. Maybe if *all* the source code leaked. But this is only
about 3%.
Jochem
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Versi
I hadn't looked past the headlines to find out how much got out.
If it's that minimal than yeah I can see your point.
Still think it could be pretty bad. We've had what three patches dealing
with RPC? Still haven't fixed all the problems in there yet.
--
Timothy Heald
Web Portfolio Manage
Ummm,
I totally agree that this is a threat to millions of computers.
Look at it this way. With an open source project you have all of these
people finding flaws and in some cases even submitting the patch to fix the
flaw. These were developed in private. The flaws that are found are
throu
Windows Source Code Loose on the 'Net
Reports online late on Thursday circulated that the source
code for Windows 2000 and Windows NT4 had been posted
to an Internet download site. Microsoft at first denied the leak,
but now says the rumors were right.
http://eletters.eweek.com/zd1/cts?d=79-480-2-
