Windows 24 Hr Vulnerabilty Patch - Would It Help?

super_ogg asks: "In light of the recent Windows infection rate problem, it prompted me to ask the question: if Microsoft was able to guarantee a 24-hour-patch for a vulnerability (and hell didn't freeze over), how much would it affect the rate of infection seeing that a lot of people don't patch their systems? Would the rate of infection increase dramatically?"

Comments

No

[MBCook]

Here is my theory, based on my observations and opionions.

For big businesses, it wouldn't help. They are already on top of these things checking their firewalls and such, trying to prevent infections. (Note: if this isn't the case, they fit in with group 2)

Then there is individuals. I can't tell you how many people's PCs I've found with basically NO updates applied (for whatever usually pointless reason). These are the people where such a quick patch could make a difference (since it tends to be home computers and those under the care of someone who doesn't know what they're doing), but they won't get the patch because these people don't patch in the first place.

MS's best solution at this point would be to force automatic updates to be on for all copies of XP Home, with no way to turn it off (short of registry editing). That way, the computers would get the updates they need, but the few people who want to turn it off would probably know enough to run their computers safely if they knew where to find the instructions and how to change the registry. (I'm ignoring the point that anyone with half a brain that was a "power user" would want XP Pro over XP Home).

A 24 hour turn around would be great, but I don' think it would make that much of a difference. Forced updates (especially if expanded to include XP Pro that isn't being managed by a domain controller/active directory to cover those one machine businesses and such) would probably go a farther way.