Search: Home Bugtraq Vulnerabilities Mailing Lists Jobs Tools Beta Programs
Microsoft's Velvet Glove
Mark Burnett, 2005-01-31

Redmond's plan to make you install Windows authentication software before downloading vital security patches is a reasonable and gentle effort to limit piracy.

Comments Mode:
Microsoft's Velvet Glove 2005-02-01
Anonymous (1 replies)
Microsoft's Velvet Glove 2005-02-02
Anonymous (2 replies)
Microsoft's Velvet Glove 2005-02-04
Anonymous
Microsoft's Velvet Glove 2005-02-05
Anonymous
Microsoft's Velvet Glove 2005-02-01
Anonymous (1 replies)
Microsoft's Velvet Glove 2005-02-02
Anonymous
Microsoft's Velvet Glove 2005-02-01
j0hnsolo
Microsoft's Velvet Glove 2005-02-01
Todd Knarr (2 replies)
Microsoft's Velvet Glove 2005-02-02
Aenox (1 replies)
Microsoft's Velvet Glove 2005-02-02
Anonymous
Microsoft's Velvet Glove 2005-02-03
Anonymous
Bandwidth costs 2005-02-01
Anonymous (3 replies)
Bandwidth costs 2005-02-02
Anonymous
Bandwidth costs 2005-02-03
Anonymous (1 replies)
Bandwidth costs 2005-02-08
Anonymous
Bandwidth costs 2005-02-04
Anonymous
Microsoft's Velvet Glove 2005-02-01
Anonymous (1 replies)
The "People just won't patch and we'll all pay the price" would be valid _if_ Microsoft were cutting off Automatic Updates. Because of Automatic Updates, we would expect pirates' systems to be secure in general. Thus the complaint would be legitimate.

Of course, that's not what's happening now, as it turns out. Like any argument raised prior to Microsoft deciding on a policy, it was necessarily hypothetical. But don't be too quick to dismiss that argument... it might come back to haunt you in a year or so. :)

[ reply ]

Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/columns/295/30296#30296
Microsoft's Velvet Glove 2005-02-04
Anonymous
Microsoft's Velvet Glove 2005-02-02
Anonymous (2 replies)
Microsoft's Velvet Glove 2005-02-02
Anonymous (3 replies)
Microsoft's Velvet Glove 2005-02-02
Anonymous
Microsoft's Velvet Glove 2005-02-03
Anonymous (1 replies)
Microsoft's Velvet Glove 2005-02-03
Anonymous (1 replies)
Microsoft's Velvet Glove 2005-02-04
Anonymous
Microsoft's Velvet Glove 2005-02-04
Steve
Microsoft's Velvet Glove 2005-02-05
Bernard Roizen
Microsoft's Velvet Glove 2005-02-07
Anonymous
Microsoft's Velvet Glove 2005-02-07
Anonymous
Microsoft's Velvet Glove 2005-02-07
Anonymous
Microsoft's Velvet Glove 2005-02-08
Anonymous
Microsoft's Velvet Glove 2005-02-08
Anonymous (1 replies)
Microsoft's Velvet Glove 2005-02-09
VBDude
Microsoft's Velvet Glove 2005-02-09
Anonymous
Microsoft's Velvet Glove 2005-02-11
Anonymous
Microsoft's Velvet Glove 2005-02-12
James C. Foster







 

Privacy Statement
Copyright 2009, SecurityFocus