Slashdot Mirror
New Windows Kernel Vulnerability Bypasses UAC
xsee writes "A new vulnerability in the Windows kernel was disclosed Wednesday that could allow malware to attain administrative privileges by bypassing User Account Control (UAC). Combined with the unpatched Internet Explorer vulnerability in the wild this could be a very bad omen for Windows users."
Since Microsoft has a virtual monopoly on operating systems installed on computers you can buy, the vulnerabilities make Microsoft more money because the average person cannot fix an infected computer and buys a new computer with another copy of Windows. See the New York Times article: Corrupted PC's Find New Home in the Dumpster. [nytimes.com]
The average person being unable to fix an infected computer has absolutely nothing to do with Microsoft's "monopoly".
Another solution is to use anti-trust law to make Windows more fair for buyers. Should users of Windows Vista pay for an entirely new version of Windows, when Vista was troublesome and a court case showed that Vista was knowingly released before it was ready? There are only small differences between Windows Vista and Windows 7. Why should users pay for an entirely new copy of Windows?
The differences between Vista and Windows 7 are *at least* as significant as the differences between any two OS X releases, and certainly as big as those between previous Windows releases like 2000 and XP, or XP and 2003.
It is my opinion that the present practices of selling something almost everyone with a computer must have are unfair and against the common welfare.
It is trivially simple to buy a computer without Windows.