The Third-Party Patching Conundrum
An anonymous reader writes, "The Zero Day Emergency Response Team, or ZERT, stepped out of the shadows a week ago to offer a quick patch for the Microsoft VML vulnerability. eWeek reports that reactions to third-party patches have been mixed. Jesper Johansson, a former Microsoft security consultant, said 'I will not use the unofficial patch, nor can I think of anyone I would recommend it to.' ZERT has enrolled former White House IT security expert Marcus Sachs as a spokesman of sorts. He told eWeek, 'This patch is just another arrow in the quiver. These guys are some of the best-known reverse engineers and security researchers. It's a tight-knit group that has worked for years to make the Internet a safer place. This isn't a patch created by some guy in a basement.' And while MS did release an out-of-band patch this week for XP, ZERT releases updates for operating systems that are out of MS support: Windows 98, Windows 98 SE, Windows ME, Windows 2000 and Windows 2000 SP3."
These people obviously know what they doing and to be quite honest with you, I like to choose whether or not i update my system with the latest patch that may slow down my computer or install sh*t i don't need. However thats for computer savy inidividuals like myself. however i don't see this really happening with the mass. People will just turn on automatic updates and click on that irritating flashing icon in the system tray. Who cares what it is, its obviously from m$ so it must be needed - so the thinking goes.
$action = empty(PHP) ? backToC() : unset(PHP) ; "when the concrete cases are understood, the abstractions are readily
I hope this really irks the people at Microsoft that make the decisions on when to EOL something.
B) Eliminate all the stupid users. This is frowned upon by society.