So, then, Ballmer is right, the customer is to blame!!! Don't blame all our smart people at MS, who can't figure out how to structure the Windows foundation in order to end 99% of these holes, once and for all.

So Windows users, Tuesdays are not new music Tuesdays for you, it's patch Tuesdays. If you don't patch, they will come.

“ if the world's best and brightest minds do indeed work at Microsoft, it's a little distressing to see them outsmarted by a teenager from Germany.“

They decided to spend money and programmers time on everything from Bob to an iTunes wannna be. Their choice and the current security situation is a result of that.

I still find it hard to believe that MS has invested resources for a copy of The Music store while leaving IE without future support AND are having to strip features from an OS that is not even due for a year or two, or three. Their priorities are rather screwed up in my book.

The one thing that MS could do with security updated is post weekly updates, provide no information on what security holes they plug and throw in enough fluff (like a little improvement on IE) to make it very difficult to see where the security plugs are. Even fluff that does nothing except hide the important code.

If Microsoft didn't release the patch, then the "security researchers" cry that there is a unpatched "known exploit" in Windows.

Further, these people will often pressure Microsoft to release a patch or they'll release sample code to the world.

Monthly updates were created to give predictability to corporate IT departments.

Microsoft's code is certainly getting better. You'll note that in the last Patch Tuesday, only one applied to XPSP2.

That's the strangest definition of a paradox I've ever seen: something which is entirely logical. The number of people with the expertise to find these holes is small, and most of them are probably the ones telling Microsoft about the holes. So, the simplest way for the others to find the hole is to wait for the patch, and see what it changes. No paradox. If someone gets hit through a patched hole, then it is their fault, and not Microsoft's.

Quote

They decided to spend money and programmers time on everything from Bob to an iTunes wannna be. Their choice and the current security situation is a result of that

paradox

\Par`a*dox\, n.; pl. Paradoxes. [F. paradoxe, L. paradoxum, fr. Gr. ?; ? beside, beyond, contrary to + ? to think, suppose, imagine. See Para-, and Dogma.] A tenet or proposition contrary to received opinion; an assertion or sentiment seemingly contradictory, or opposed to common sense; that which in appearance or terms is absurd, but yet may be true in fact.

So...The idea that patches precede the virus both goes against common sense/received opinion and it seems absurd but is true. How does this not fit the definition?

-zip

Quote

Guest wrote:
paradox

\Par`a*dox\, n.; pl. Paradoxes. [F. paradoxe, L. paradoxum, fr. Gr. ?; ? beside, beyond, contrary to + ? to think, suppose, imagine. See Para-, and Dogma.] A tenet or proposition contrary to received opinion; an assertion or sentiment seemingly contradictory, or opposed to common sense; that which in appearance or terms is absurd, but yet may be true in fact.

So...The idea that patches precede the virus both goes against common sense/received opinion and it seems absurd but is true. How does this not fit the definition?

-zip

I was using the conventional definition (OED):

Quote

A statement or proposition which, from an acceptable premise and despite sound reasoning, leads to a conclusion that is against sense, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory; freq. distinguished by name, esp. of its propounder or of the type of problem it raises

Technically, I see validity on both sides. However, you can't point to the common usage of a word and declare all other usages wrong. Well, I guess you can, but it is inappropriate to do so.

It also seems to me that that the definition you used works on a subjective level, as Guest suggests. The key is contradiction, not whatever is being contradicited.

Just wondering -
Does anyone know if many - or any - of the winodws vulnerabilities are also (or the result of) "undocumented APIs"?

At least in the past M$ has been accused of using "features" of the OS for their own products that were not published for others to use.

Is there any connection with the enourmouse vulerability of Windows - perhaps historically - or is this idea way off base?

Quote

UserNameUser wrote:
Just wondering -
Does anyone know if many - or any - of the winodws vulnerabilities are also (or the result of) "undocumented APIs"?

At least in the past M$ has been accused of using "features" of the OS for their own products that were not published for others to use.

Is there any connection with the enourmouse vulerability of Windows - perhaps historically - or is this idea way off base?

Unless through some Admin magic, my post (above) shows up under the "David Pogue Points Out The Windows Paradox" article - as intended, in my browser.