, 2003-09-15
The software-maker's dismal security record seems to have left it immune to criticism and shame.
Expand all |
Post comment
Does Microsoft Give a Damn?
2003-09-15
Anonymous (6 replies)
Anonymous (6 replies)
Does Microsoft Give a Damn?
2003-09-15
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
Don't Hold Strong Opinions About Something You Do Not Understand
2003-09-15
Anonymous (5 replies)
Anonymous (5 replies)
We Must Do Our Job
2003-09-15
Sean M. Lynch (2 replies)
Sean M. Lynch (2 replies)
Patch, reboot, patch, reboot....
2003-09-16
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
Useless rhetoric
2003-09-15
Anonymous (2 replies)
Anonymous (2 replies)
If only Linux required as little as 38 fixes.
2003-09-18
Scott G (3 replies)
Scott G (3 replies)
If only Windows allowed scripting w/o the security headaches.
2003-09-18
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
If only Linux required as little as 38 fixes.
2003-09-19
Anonymous (3 replies)
Anonymous (3 replies)
Of Course They Dont::Does Microsoft Give a Damn?
2003-09-18
Linux, Torvald. Mr. Linux Torvald to you. (1 replies)
Linux, Torvald. Mr. Linux Torvald to you. (1 replies)
Does Microsoft Give a Damn?
2003-09-19
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
Only two Suse patches?!?
2003-09-19
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)

I understand that in the *ix world the Morris worm was a security watershed and was once the standard of comparison for worms and related security problems, and M$ operating systems get hit with the equivalent of the Morris worm two and three times a week.
What's to understand? Anything M$ has ever sold has been either stolen from other firms (like the memory management portion of the Windows 3.1 kernel, stolen line for line from Quarterdeck Software, memory leaks and all) and used without royalties, b0rked when it came out of the box, or both.
[ reply ]
Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/columns/185/22339#22339