Your reply is just a variation on NRA's mantra "it's not guns that kill people, but the person who pulls the trigger".

Yeah, whatever. Anyway, few arguments stand-up very well when taken to their extremes. (Physicists will be familiar with the phrase "boundary conditions").

The facts however are these:

a) Many users/administrators do not take even the basic countermeasures.

b) Microsoft distribute very defective products.

c) People exploit a) & b) to give c)

Given this model, any blame can be shared, the resulting bun-fight is just about the percentage.

There are a multitude of reasons as to why a) to c) exist, and equally many countermeasures that can be taken.

My personal view is Microsoft shoulder much of the responsibility simply because their product defects are so grave, and arguably not fit for the purpose for which they are intended.

By analogy, if your car came without a door lock and ignition key, the car manufacturer would get sued PDQ. Given a healthy international competitive market place, they'd want to fix this oversight lest they loose out to the competition.

...which leads us into "why Monopolies can be bad" ;-)

[ reply ]

Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/columns/216/24633#24633