The news.com article had one interesting quote that is different than the usual "time-to-patch-again" article, from Jeff Jones at MS:
"It was primarily a process issue," he said. "We will be updating our automated scanning tool to make sure this type of issue is detected in the future."
Last week, there were two patches released - both termed "buffer overruns". Nice semantics, because it's not made clear whether one could call this a buffer overflow, or an UNDERflow. It was just two weeks ago when the details about getting Linux to run on the XBox were released, and how the buffer underflow trick was used. Makes me wonder if MS took notice of that trick, and is now busy scanning the rest of their code looking for underflows, as opposed to the overflows they've already had their automated tools earmarking?
Slashdot Mirror
The news.com article had one interesting quote that is different than the usual "time-to-patch-again" article, from Jeff Jones at MS:
"It was primarily a process issue," he said. "We will be updating our automated scanning tool to make sure this type of issue is detected in the future."
Last week, there were two patches released - both termed "buffer overruns". Nice semantics, because it's not made clear whether one could call this a buffer overflow, or an UNDERflow. It was just two weeks ago when the details about getting Linux to run on the XBox were released, and how the buffer underflow trick was used. Makes me wonder if MS took notice of that trick, and is now busy scanning the rest of their code looking for underflows, as opposed to the overflows they've already had their automated tools earmarking?