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."
DUPE!
:)
Okay, so it's actually not a dupe, but I got to hear Slashdot users all sigh at once.
First post! and MS doesn't patch everything because they weigh cost of patching vs benefit of writing the patch and the risks associated with leaving it alone at the time. A seemingly small, unimportant issue will not get more attention than something that drives or will potentially make money.
You mean an eye-eee patch.