3 thoughts on “links for 2008-11-20”

  1. I’ve never, never, never understood this. You ship a product that has flaws and holes in it (which EVERY SOFTWARE does – that part is not a slight at Microsoft) and a level of mass popularity (and perhaps a incorrect backwards-compatible design philosophy because of that popularity) that leads to those flaws and holes being exploited, which leads to a entire industry for mitigating those exploits (that then has to generate continued revenue by exacerbating the risk of those exploits). But then, out of deference this industry, you don’t then try to mitigate the exploits on your own platform – or do so in a way that weakens your own protections to let them survive – or you plan on charging people for a service that fixes your own problems (which I guess they might have abandoned now).

    It’s absurd. It’s almost like completely failing to keep your automotive products competitive and running your company in the ground, and then going to the government for a bailout to continue doing the same stupid things…. hmmm, wait a minute.

  2. Perhaps you’d trust them more if they stopped worrying so much about other security vendors and actually worked to fix the problems… 🙂 They’ve tiptoed around companies like Symantec for so long that their own solutions, like MS Defender, suck.

    Gotta break some eggs to make an omelet.

Comments are closed.