Slashdot Mirror
Why Can't Microsoft Just Patch Everything?
paneraboy writes "If smaller software companies can patch all of their bugs serious or minor, ZDNet's George Ou asks, why can't Microsoft -- with its massive army of programmers and massive budget -- patch all of its vulnerabilities? Had Microsoft fixed a low risk browser vulnerability six months ago, perhaps we could have avoided last week's zero-day exploit. Currently, more than two dozen Windows XP issues remain unpatched. Ou thinks Microsoft ought to fix them all." From the article: "Almost 4 years after the launch of Trustworthy Computing, I found myself wondering why am I staying up till 4:00 AM to deliver an emergency set of instructions (Home and Enterprise) to my readers because Microsoft felt it unnecessary to patch a flaw six months ago that was originally low risk but mutated in to something extremely dangerous."
To paraphrase a certain mercenary, where's the percentage in that?
"The dew has clearly fallen with a particularly sickening thud this morning"
Issuing patches is dangerous.
Every time Microsoft patches its software, hackers use their patches to discover security holes and to issue exploits!
But when they don't patch their software, no bad guys notice these vulnerabilities. In fact, no virus or worm has *ever* exploited a vulnerability before a critical update was released!
Duh.
We recently had heard in the office over one of the Yellow Machine that's made by Anthology Solutions.
I can hear Microsoft execs right now: "Well when you put it that way...why didn't we think of this before?"
"What's the status of our new software?"
"Ready for launch Mr Carver, and - as requested - it's full of bugs, so people will be forced to upgrade for years."
"Delicious."
/not serious... no, seriously.
A-Bomb
patching the holes in Ballmer's walls from all the flying chairs.
no, I didn't mean that ;)
Maybe it should be named zero-year exploit.
Signatures are for stupids.
Attention all hands! Abandon metaphor! ABANDON METAPHOR!!!
Though I must admit, it gives new meaning to "software piracy". Ahrrrrrrrr.
No, OSS is not free of bugs
But their bugs are free.
1. Base it on tried and tested code. Maybe supply the source code for the world's programming talent to see if there is anything wrong with it. Also encourage help with new projects.
2. Give it a snappy name - words ending in an "x" always sound cool.
3. Oh - and it would need a logo - maybe from the animal kingdom?
4.
5. Profit! (Oh - wait...)
"All of our products now certified 'Good Enough'(tm). The new version will fix (insert issue here) anyway."
On a related note, don't you just love the dinosaur ads MS is now using. "Still using Office 2000?!? What a relic you are! You ever heard of the dinosaurs? Well that's you if you don't upgrade RIGHT NOW! Also, the 'Good Enough'(tm) guarantee expires the day the new version comes out."
Ignore anything I said above, I actually agree with everything you believe - mod accordingly.
preach on brother!
that OP question is a dumb as "why can't the US kill all the terrorists? with their large army and all their technology?". We'll put in the same bin as "why can't you marry britney spears" and "why can't you quit your job and become a scuba diver"
did you forget to take your meds?
if they "patched everything", then they would need to find an alternate source of their weekly worldwide exposure. as we know, even bad news can be good news, it's getting your name out there that's important.
also, the constant need for patches allow them to feel they are still relevent.
ActiveX is one HELL of a typo.