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

    • Well, yes, every CU on the bus is available via the Consult port, but whether the scanner you are using is capable of talking to the TCU, the ABS/TCS modules, etc etc, is what is at question here. Many of them are only for engine codes. So, if you have one of those, you won't know if the ABS is having a bitch.
    • That's now. R chassis Skylines come from a time when the tolerance in the ADRs was a bit more....slack. My car, on 235/35-17, which is damn near the exact same size as the original 205/55-16, is pretty much bang on correct indicated speed across the whole legal range. That's demonstrated with constant speed run over 5km, and GPS speed. It's just the luck of the draw. My particular speedo head has to be the thing that is "calibrated" that way, because everything else (the diff ratio, the gearbox and the speedo drive**) are all same same as most other Skylines. **OK, so the speedo drive is a Navara unit to drive the R32's cable, not the electronic unit than an R33/4 would normally have with teh same gear on it. Otherwise, I applaud your OCD tendencies, and I would do the same if I needed to.
    • Not too sure, I believe the Nissan consult port does everything? Also just filled up the reservoir to full and the light is still on. The float seems to move up and down fine.
    • The speedo's can be very conservative, when my Mazda NC MX5 speedo is showing 118kph, the GPS, and a calibrated radar.... cop mate.....hits me at around 110kph +/- 1 or 2 kph, and that is on a 215/45 17, stock tyres size is 205/45 17 as well, so weirdly conservative with stock tyre size When my Commodore speedo red 116kph GPS had me at 110kph on 255/40 17, so again conservative Google says manufacturers need to set the speedo from 4 to 10% slower than actual road speed.....for safety.....and compliance  After doing some offset and clearance measurements to see what can fit the NC on 17x8 +40, without guard rolling or rubbing anything at my current ride height, I've decided that when my tyres are toast, I'm going to fit 225/45 17 and see where that gets me IRT actual speed of my speedo and GPS/radar From the online calculator I should be still be doing around 5kph under an actual 110kph when the speedo is showing 110kph My ADHD requires that when I'm doing 110kph on the speedo, that the actual road speed is actually really close to that, and not alot slower And going from 205 to 225 still keeps the car within the %/mm allowable in the NSW vehicle rules and regulations, which is nice, as long as I'm looking at the latest version that is.....LOL https://www.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-02/RMS-13.464-Light-vehicle-modifications-Vehicle-Standards-Information-No-6-November-2013.pdf
    • Take the value it measured as, and pick the closest range available that is above the reading on the screen.   Also, no point just testing the coils. Read what has been said again. You need to test all your wiring, everything.
×
×
  • Create New...