Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

B-Man, yes there was a vulnerability in the windows operating system. However the the vulnerability was hacked by someone who decided to exploit it to send a worm around the net. Now had this person not intentionally created a program to exploit this vulnerability then everything would be fine.

I don't believe Microsoft are to be held accountable for what happened. It happened because some idiot decided to be a prick. The only person responsible for shit network performance due to packet loss is the person who wrote this worm. I have also recently been made aware that Microsoft did have a patch available to cure this vulnerablility (although I am reserving my judgement on the accuracy of this info). So therefore in my mind they found a problem and supplied a solution to it. I'll bet money on the fact that not 1 person I took a call from about this issue applied that patch.

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The patch was actually available quite abit before this worm made its appearance (I believe around 2 mths earlier).

But then again how many people even know how to switch off their PC correctly let alone logon to WindowsUpdate.com

No. But thats Microsoft for you !

So do you agree that it is unfair ?

B-Man, yes there was a vulnerability in the windows operating system. However the the vulnerability was hacked by someone who decided to exploit it to send a worm around the net. Now had this person not intentionally created a program to exploit this vulnerability then everything would be fine.  

I don't believe Microsoft are to be held accountable for what happened. It happened because some idiot decided to be a prick. The only person responsible for shit network performance due to packet loss is the person who wrote this worm. I have also recently been made aware that Microsoft did have a patch available to cure this vulnerablility (although I am reserving my judgement on the accuracy of this info). So therefore in my mind they found a problem and supplied a solution to it. I'll bet money on the fact that not 1 person I took a call from about this issue applied that patch.

I just think commercial operating systems should quality control their products better - MS are making quillions so they should be able to afford too. The vulerability was Microsoft's problem in the first place in my mind - had it not been there - No Blaster. Simple as that in my mind. I know all software vendors release product with bugs - but I reckon they should test it better before they release it - Not Linux and GPL software cause no-one makes $$ out of that the same way MS, Oracle, Peoplesoft, SAP, etc make money.

Imagine if SAP had a bug in their payroll module - then some shmuck decides to exploit it because he's pissed with his brother-in-law or whatever. And becasue of the exploit - no one gets paid for 2 months while SAP write and distribute the patch - That woiuld be un-acceptable right ? SAP's fault right ?

Software is software - you pay for a product - It should work.

That's only my view of course - And I do tend to wear rose coloured glasses looking at the perfect world out there - Cause I am pretty perfect myself, NOT.

Cheers

:cool:

Originally posted by B-Man

So do you agree that it is unfair ?

Yes I agree its unfair but nothing will be changed to fix the problem.

Software is software - you pay for a product - It should work.

When you pay for this product... then take it home.... remove it from the plastic... rip through the T&C's that state that no responsibility will be take for blah blah blah you have just laid the blame on yourself for anything that goes wrong.

When you pay for this product... then take it home.... remove it from the plastic... rip through the T&C's that state that no responsibility will be take for blah blah blah you have just laid the blame on yourself for anything that goes wrong.

Yes I know - and that's not fair either - All care and no responsibility.

I know I'm discussing this pointlessly - Everyone just accepts it - However, if we all didn't just accept the situation - the software vendors would do different - IMHO.

yeah, no doubt that levels of issues in software would never be tolerated in other industries....

...but in this case, the vendor has supplied a fix for their problem before some l337 haxor created the worm, they've done their bit by making the fix available to all licensed owners for no charge.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • The ATTESSA is functionally identical to R34; there were a bunch of JDM models that continued ATTESSA including Fuga/Q70, Skyline/Q50, Cima etc as an option. All with Auto only and I think mostly for snow regions. AFAIK there were no AWD VR30DDTT sold in Australia - it is on my to do list to check regs for racing a LHD car in Targa/ATR/AASA/CAMS events because if I can get the auto to work it would be interesting to run a 4wd car The Ecuteck TCM tuning is the same model as their ECU tuning, they already have it for R35 and Dose's favourite, BMW. You buy "points" to allow your computer to be tuned, buy either a bluetooth (phone app) or bluetooth+USB+Key (phone and PC) dongle, and pay for a tune that will be locked to your tuner ( ). You can also access the tuning software yourself but 1. it is mega expensive and 2. these computers have a billion parameters that intersect, so how could you ever spend enough time on it to get a decent result.
    • Or, is it a case of what it is like owning an R series Skyline? NFI what the previous owner has done or fiddled with... Ha ha ha After reading through this thread, I went on a bit of a research about the Q50/Q60. Now I'm quite intrigued by them! Is the AWD in them more like a WRX where it's always AWD, or is it more like the ATTESSA in the GTRs? By the sound of this TCU tuning, this sounds like a case of someone has made some real software for it, and you just need the right piece of hardware, and then you license that specific vehicle/TCU. Or is this a case of the software will be really expensive so only a few tuners have it, and you still have to pay a license per vehicle?
    • By popular demand.. it was a coil. Got my hands on 1 new OEM coil, replaced with the one that made the less noise difference when I unplugged it while the car was running and started the car up. No stutter and the engine light was gone. I guess I’ll buy the other 5 they have lol
    • No, code 21 is very straightforward. It can only be the things described in that diagnostic flow. In fact it has no way of knowing that the spark plug resistance is out of spec.
    • Hi, SteveL Thank you very much for your reply, you seem to be the only person on the net who has come up with a definitive answer for which I am grateful. The "Leak" was more by way of wet bubbles when the pedal was depressed hard by a buddy while trying to gey a decent pedal when bleeding the system having fitted the rebuilt BM50 back in the car, which now makes perfect sense. A bit of a shame having just rebuilt my BM50, I did not touch the proportioning valve side of things, the BM50 was leaking from the primary piston seal and fluid was running down the the Brake booster hence the need to rebuild, I had never noticed any fluid leaking from that hole previously it only started when I refitted it to the car. The brake lines in the photo are "Kunifer" which is a Copper/Nickel alloy brake pipe, but are only the ones I use to bench bleed Master cylinders, they are perfectly legal to use on vehicles here in the UK, however the lines on the car are PVF coated steel. Thanks again for clearing this up for me, a purchase of a new BMC appears to be on the cards, I have been looking at various options in case my BM50 was not repairable and have looked at the HFM BM57 which I understand is manufactured in Australia.  
×
×
  • Create New...