Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Lawsuit Against Microsoft Over Insecure Software

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the well-at-least-proving-it-is-easy dept.

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?"

4 of 537 comments (clear)

  1. Following their lead by (54)T-Dub · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Valve might want to take a look at this lawsuit considering their potentially devestaing loss reported earlier today. According to Gabe Newell, from whom the source code of their latest was stolen, a hacker gained access to his machine "via a buffer overflow in Outlook's preview pane." Read his entire message here.

    --

    "I can not bring myself to believe that if knowledge presents danger, the solution is ignorance" - Isaac Asimov
  2. and for OSS software? by chrysalis · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The problem is : if Microsoft is judged responsible, what would happen to others in the same situation ? Especially to free software ?

    --
    {{.sig}}
  3. Consider this.... by thewiz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Back in the 1980s, a Japanese worker was killed by a robot on an assembly line due to a software failure. And robot control systems are very throughly tested before a new model of robot is released. Microsoft is trying to muscle their way into the embedded marketplace; do you want software that has plenty of known defects/security issues running your robot?

    --
    If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
  4. IF you read the article... by javaxman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    you'll notice the case seems to hinge on Microsoft's monopoly status.

    If they did not have a monopoly on desktop computer systems, this type of lawsuit wouldn't be a problem for them. Since, due to all sorts of vendor lock-in promoted by Microsoft itself, it is difficult for users to pick a different desktop, the lack of security in their software ( i.e. buffer overflows everywhere ) ... I don't know. Since I'm not a lawyer, this is where the case falls apart for me.

    But maybe a monopolist which continues to abuse it's position _should_ be held to a higher standard than others ? Is it not arguable that MS has the resources required to audit all of it's code and fix such issues ? Maybe not technically true, but arguable in court...