>> >> >> Jo wrote: >> > Duane Hill schreef: >> >> Marc Perkel wrote: >> >>> I'm considering filing a lawsuit against Microsoft to try to get an >> >>> order to make them make public security updates for Windows to >> >>> everyone, registered or not. >> >>> >> >>> The idea is that their product Windows creates a toxic byproduct >> >>> (spam,ddos zombies) that interfere with everyone else's internet >> >>> usage and that they have a responsibility to clean it up. It would >> >>> be similar to a suit where a business that is otherwise legitimate >> >>> attracts crime in a neighborhood or a manufacturer dumping toxic >> >>> waste into a stream. >> >>> >> >>> Virus infected spam zombie are a toxic byproduct of their business >> >>> model and it affects all of us and they have a duty to the public to >> >>> fix it. I'm somewhat of a legal expert, not a lawyer though. But >> >>> just wanted to get some feedback on the idea. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> Good luck! As it is now, Windows is the most widely used platform at >> >> present. That is the reason it is the most widely attacked. If Mac >> >> OSX or any other platform were to rise up and be dominant, then guess >> >> what would happen? Yes. That platform would be the one most widely >> >> attacked. >> >> >> >> So, should the other OS platforms start to take action now in >> >> preparing for an OS mainstream shift? >> > I don't buy the hypothesis that if another OS would be more popular it >> > would automatically be such a sieve like Windows. A system can be >> > intrinsically more secure due to the choices that were made during its >> > development. >> > >> > Suing MS, I would say: Go for it! By all means. Maybe they can also >> > die the death of a thousand cuts. >> > >> > Jo >> >> Popularity is a factor. But the real vulnerability is that Windows can >> be more secure if it has the patches. If Linux for example restricted >> it's seurity patches to only licensed users they would have the same >> problem. I'm not saying either that MS should be compelled to distribute >> any upgrades for free. Just secutiry fixes. >> Hi,
I believe that some users of illegal copies avoid to download security fixes because - they fear that some info about them might be sent to MS - it is not always clear what an update really does. I have no idea whether the first one is true, but I can say for sure that the ONLY update that windows suggested to install by itself on a specific pc was WGA .... but nothing security related. This does not necessarily improve confidence in the security update mechanism Side note: some of the "pirated" windows copies only seem to exist due to problems with the system, or strange licensing conditions. If I can trust some recent statistics, the vast majority of systems is sold with windows already installed, and should not be candidates for pirating at all. If these systems are set up such that the average user cannot reinstall after a crash or hardware change, users might prefer to reinstall from a non-restricted version and probably use a pirated one. After all, why should they pay twice for the same OS on the same computer Perhaps this aspect of the computer business should be questioned in court Wolfgang Hamann
