On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 22:39:41 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> __/ [ arachnid ] on Wednesday 30 August 2006 02:26 \__
>
>> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 18:41:43 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>
>>> __/ [ Peter Hayes ] on Tuesday 29 August 2006 17:33 \__
>>>
>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/5294750.stm
>>>>
>>>> Mark Mulligan, an analyst from Jupiter Research, said: "I think
>>>> Microsoft will be putting tools into place to close the hole - they
>>>> are the big gorilla of the digital media space - whenever they
>>>> develop a piece of technology people try to hack it and crack it.
>>>>
>>>> "They have good systems in place to dynamically update their system
>>>> to make sure holes are filled."
>>>>
>>>> Uh huh.
>>>
>>> They have just 'fixed' it. I saw it somewhere among the feeds.
>
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/5294750.stm
>
> Microsoft tackles anti-copy hole
>
>
>> You can be sure it'll be in the next MS "Critical Security" update.
>
> More critical than Internet Explorer7 I doubt it, Killing Firefox is a
> higher priority than stopping copyright infringement.
They may get away with it under the current corporatist administration in
the US. I've a feeling the EU's antitrust regulators have had about enough
of Microsoft.
> And let's not forget WGA. The notion of important system updates is
> being misued.
I've been harping on this for years. One of the reasons Windows is so
insecure is that so many Windows users have been burned in the past so now
they refuse to install any updates. I've heard people on the Windows
support groups say they haven't upgraded XP in years. When people ask
for help with things like WGA, there's often a chorus of voices warning
them never to update XP unless something's broken.
|
|
