On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 12:16:06 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
<newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>__/ [ Colin Wilson ] on Sunday 16 July 2006 11:24 \__
>
>>> > As you may know, Microsoft has ended its support for Windows 98.
>>> This may seem acceptable for some, but these machines are being hijacked
>>> and are joined to form botnets.
>>
>> Win98 is probably more secure now than XP - it has attained security
>> through obscurity.
>>
>> As long as someone with two brain cells configures a firewall and AV
>> program, its probably as solid as you're likely to get without a shift
>> to *nix.
>
>But this does not quite address the issue. Windows PC's are being hijacked
>and cause damage even to those who never set their hands on Microsoft
>software. Shouldn't someone be held liable?
Yes, of course somebody should.
The people who illegally hijack those computers should be held liable.
You can't hold a third party (Microsoft) liable for their actions.
It would be almost impossible to show that a vulnerability found 7
years after the product was released was so obvious that they were
negligent in not spotting it before release.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
He who places head in sand, will get kicked in the end!
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
|
|
