Slashdot Mirror
DRM Hole Sets Patch Speed Record For Microsoft
puppetman writes "Wired columnist Bruce Schneier has an article up called 'Quickest Patch Ever', about a patch that was issued within three days to fix a vulnerability in Windows Digital Rights Management (DRM)." From the article: "Now, this isn't a 'vulnerability' in the normal sense of the word: digital rights management is not a feature that users want. Being able to remove copy protection is a good thing for some users, and completely irrelevant for everyone else. No user is ever going to say: 'Oh no. I can now play the music I bought for my PC on my Mac. I must install a patch so I can't do that anymore.' But to Microsoft, this vulnerability is a big deal. It affects the company's relationship with major record labels. It affects the company's product offerings. It affects the company's bottom line. Fixing this 'vulnerability' is in the company's best interest; never mind the customer."
What's their excuse going to be the next time a user vulnerability that has exploits in the wild has to wait for the next release cycle?
fatal holes in the browser? whatever
allowing spyware to take over? who cares
DRM? we're on it!
The fast fix suggests that rapidness of response might be a function of "whose ox is being gored".
So this is going to be the least installed patch for windows ever. untill they make it mandatory
Actually, this is a very serious question: is the patch marked critical, or not? This is important, because:
1. If the patch is critical, it will get criticized for being, in effect, mandatory degradation of capability (by the tech-savvy). Also, this will make light of Microsoft's security policy, to call this sort of patch 'critical'.
2. If the patch is not critical, then - oh, the irony - by default, it will not be installable on computers failing WGA. Perhaps Microsoft will get around this. But, as WGA currently works, only critical patches are allowed to systems marked as 'non-genuine'. This would be amusing - pirated copies of Windows would not receive this unwanted patch, but paid-for copies would.
I can't find, in TFA or the sources it cites, any mention of the severity of the patch. Anyone know the answer to this?
The free market is EXACTLY how this should be fixed.
It's currently regulated so that the free market has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PROBLEM.
The primary issue, and this is exactly out of Mr Schneier's playbook, is that Microsoft has no direct civil liability for their defects. It's exaclty as if you couldn't sue Ford becase your Pinto's gas tank exploded. Ford would have no reason to fix the defect. Well, the same problem here: if you buy defective software, you have no recourse to sue the manufacturer of the product. Remove that lack of liability and you'll start to see problems get fixed very very quickly.
If Microsoft was civilly liable for every piece of spam that was sent by a Windows zombie PC, there would very quickly be patches.
Less protection of corporations, and more market forces, would fix this problem. This is EXACTLY the kind of problem markets are very good at fixing. The problem is that the current regulation circumvents the market.
Unfortunately, free markets lead to concentration of wealth. Concentration of wealth leads to concentration of power, which leads to control of the regulatory process. Free markets invariably become unfree because of a runaway feedback loop. At least in democracy we have checks and balances. Where are the checks and balances within a free market that will work to keep it free? there are none.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
And there's no concentration of wealth and power now, in our democracy? Maybe you've missed the consistent erosion of our rights lately, and fail to realize that the people eroding those rights also have the power to use force (as in they can lock you up and/or kill you) to further their ends AND it's perfectly legal so long as the right people are paid off (or themselves coerced.)