Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Won't Offer Patch Before Worm Strikes?
techmuse writes "According to an article in Information Week, Microsoft is aware that the 'Kama Sutra/Blackworm/MyWife' worm will hit on Friday, overwriting office documents, but will not release a patch until its regular monthly patch release on February 14th. Unless, that is, you subscribe to one of Microsoft's pay security services, in which case your machine will have the worm removed in advance." From the article: "The blog offered no explanation why the tool wouldn't be updated earlier, nor did Microsoft immediately respond to questions. Each month, Microsoft pushes a revised tool to Windows users who have Automatic Update enabled for Windows Update or Microsoft Update. The Redmond, Wash.-based company has released the Malicious Software Removal Tool off-schedule once before, in August 2005, shortly after the Zotob worm began striking Windows 2000 systems."
Nice Windows machine you've got there. Wouldn't want anything to, um, happen to it. You need insurance, and we happen to sell insurance. Capiche?
I too have felt the cold finger of injustice.
Wrong. The entire content of this story is that Microsoft isn't releasing a malicious software removal tool until the 14th, as usual. So, go use any virus checker on the planet instead, including Microsoft's, to solve the problem now.
Check the license agreement for Windows XP. Nothing in there says that Microsoft will ever provide fixes, period. If you don't like their service-after-the-sale, get off the upgrade treadmill and stop buying licenses from them or buy an expanded service agreement from them. They aren't
Software licenses are agreements that should have the full weight of contract law. There is no other way that the licenses I prefer, like the GPL, BSD, Mozilla, MIT, etc, get any legal weight. If you can't abide by the terms, take a stand, show some guts, and click "Cancel" on the install. Find some software that is licensed under terms you can accept. Don't be a sheep and agree just because it would be too hard, or make you go look for other software if you disagree.
THIS STUFF IS IMPORTANT.
Your argument reminds me of something a friend said. We all have seen those "hardest American football hits ever" sports reels, right? Now they look nice and pretty, and they knock the ball carrier down, right? Now here's the problem: in almost every case, the guy had already caught the ball and picked up yards.
Do you see what I'm getting at? All those viruses and spywares and worms on your computer have already done damage when you get them removed. The goal is to keep them from getting on your computer or at least keep them from running. And MS is deliberately charging for that feature. Their online virus-removal thing is nice, and can mitigate some damage, but the horse already left the barn.
AFAICT this is as run-of-the-mill as virus threats get, and I'm grateful that MS is maintaining a level of software discipline and not jumping all over themselves to instantly respond to every stupid little worm that crosses the net. I'd much rather see meaningful updates once a month than frantic, possibly-buggy scramble fixes three times a week.
Unfortunately, the effort here by Microsoft here won't save the users most likely affected by the virus. Those users who don't know how to protect themselves adequately probably rely on Windows Update to keep their computer safe. How many of them will be informed in time to use Live Safety, or for that matter, how many of them know that it exists?
At least I know how to protect my computers. So the impact to me would be none regardless of what Microsoft does. It is those users that don't even know the definition of malware that are most at risk, and will be the least likely to use Microsoft's proposed remedy.
Or maybe they should sue their brain for non-support after being told hundreds upon hundreds of times.
Attachments from unknown people? Delete!
Scan Attachments before clicking!
Ask sender if they meant to send attachment!
Microsoft has no responsibility to cover a users idiocy.
Ok, bring the bad karma.
I'm a Book
On the Bookshelf
What we really need is for MS to release a patch to repair the stupid and irresponsible users out there. Why haven't they fixed this obvious security loophole?
The problem with these viruses is that they do not kill the victims. If they did, then at least we could look forward to the point when Darwinisim fixed the problem for us. :)
--This sig is in beta. Please let us know abut any errors you find.
Your analogy is more accurate than the parent, but still faulty. The problem is with this part:
Our car is as car bomb proof as we were able to make it
I'm fairly certain that Microsoft engineers were fully capable of making Windows more secure. They have smart people working there. Reality is that they made it as secure as they were willing to make it. It's like cars in the '60s. Safety didn't sell if it was an inconvienience. Adding more security to Windows would have meant less ease of use and less backwards compatability. Both are important to maintain the customer base and prevent people from considering alternatives. Were they right or wrong? That depends on how you look at it, but you certainly can't say they implemented security to the limits of their ability.
And no, I don't think that moving to *nix is the answer either. I've had users follow instructions included with an email virus to type in a password required to unzip the payload, then run it. Those users will certainly be willing to type in "rm *" or whatever instructions come along with a virus. Their user files, the only thing of value on the machine, are toast either way. These are the same folks that will never back up their data either, so they really are toast.
> You want to give someone a file, send them a link to your ftp server.
get with the times, should be a tracking link to your torrent.
ftp works for the 2% of people who have their own non nat, static ip address with a ftp server that hasn't been blasted off the face of the internet. I am even in the small percent that do have a static ip, but the people I send files to don't have VPN access to any of my servers, and having ftp openly accesable to the net would just be stupid (and which windows users have sftp client installed? ok I do have port 80 access to a webserver that could serve the file, but thats probably not average or easier than attach either.)
Clearly a solution for the unwashed masses. We can't seem to get people from double clicking every email attachment, I'm sure their ready to setup, configure and tweak their own IPTables.