Slashdot Mirror
Lawsuit Against Microsoft Over Insecure Software
Cinematique writes "Reuters reports that a California-based lawsuit alleges the Redmond software giant produces software with little concern for security and that their products are highly susceptible to, "massive, cascading failures." Should Microsoft's software be treated any differently than, say, automobiles?"
Besides, every time I see an exploit, it's after Microsoft has already issued a patch. This would seem to suggest that they aren't as responsible for the problems as many seem to think they are; as soon as they're aware of an issue, they fix it. Maybe they could design the stuff secure out of the box, but they'd be the first manufacturer to accomplish such a feat.
Stop using it if it's a problem. There are alternatives now.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
With the horrible network congestion and system compromisation that has come with the recent rash of massive MS worms, you do not have to have agreed to a EULA in order to be harmed by Microsoft's poor design and blatant disregard for security.
In other words: it has reached the point where even people who are not Microsoft product users are harmed by Microsoft's irresponsibility. The messes created by the holes in MS products make EVERYONE a possible target for collateral damage.
Severity isn't the only issue. If your automobile was faulty in a way that caused it to safely pull over to the side of the road but it wouldn't restart for half an hour, you'd still see recalls for lost time and money.
The danger here isn't just that it feeds a lot of lawyers, and isn't making software manufacturer produce less buggy code -- that's something that's been needed for a long time.
The danger is that someone like MS says "OK, we'll accept liability, but only if it's our software, running on our operating system, with no additional code on the system that we didn't install, and only on hardware we approve of, and we end up with even more of a monopoly.
"The problem is : if Microsoft is judged responsible, what would happen to others in the same situation ? Especially to free software ?"
I'm glad somebody else finally said this.
There are a few simple things to consider:
- Software is written by error-prone humans.
- Software is maliciously used by people who concoct creative ideas.
- Linux may be more secure by default, but it's still a human error away from having the same type of problem hit it.
I'll tell you all something, if I'd be scared shitless about releasing an app on the web if it turned out I could be responsible for somebody else being a bastard with it.
"Derp de derp."