1 posted on
08/14/2003 10:01:48 AM PDT by
paulat
To: paulat
yes.
2 posted on
08/14/2003 10:02:29 AM PDT by
Grit
(Tolerance for all but the intolerant...and those who tolerate intolerance etc etc)
To: paulat
I wouldn't impute malice where ignorance is the trend.
3 posted on
08/14/2003 10:04:44 AM PDT by
D-fendr
(Fortunately the feedback was slightly out of phase.)
To: paulat
Microsoft does not need to increase profit by this method. They are fighthing to keep close source software now, You idea will not help the fight.
4 posted on
08/14/2003 10:04:44 AM PDT by
bmwcyle
(Here's to Hillary's book sinking like the Clinton 2000 economy)
To: paulat
they've known about the problem for awhile. had the patch ready before the worm hit...
not sure but it sounds like a great conspiracy theory.
5 posted on
08/14/2003 10:05:59 AM PDT by
bedolido
(None of us is as dumb as all of us!)
To: paulat
Let me elaborate...
I don't agree with any one of your 10 points. And not one addresses: "Why?"
MSFT launches "benign" worm to preempt someone launching a malicious one? No. If MSFT wanted customers to patch their machines and had the ability and desire to create a worm to infect their machines. Why would they not just have the worm patch the machines?
6 posted on
08/14/2003 10:07:45 AM PDT by
Grit
(Tolerance for all but the intolerant...and those who tolerate intolerance etc etc)
To: paulat
Yes, you are wrong to think that the MSBLASTER worm was an inside job.
And you are wrong about someone in Redmond getting a big raise. Actually it would most likely be someone in India getting a big raise.
7 posted on
08/14/2003 10:07:50 AM PDT by
zchip
To: paulat
Yawn. I guess MSFT is going to insert microchips in our food so they can track us from the scret Space station on Venus too, eh?
10 posted on
08/14/2003 10:10:41 AM PDT by
theDentist
(Liberals can sugarcoat sh** all they want. I'm not biting.)
To: paulat
You missed a step - M$ has been hinting for years now about how much better it would be if the Operating System (OS) license were sold on a subscription basis with yearly renewals. Thus, instead of a one-time purchase, every year M$ would get another chunk of money from each Windoze user.
With these kind of attacks, M$ could make the case that only this kind of business model can keep the patches and fixes coming for those who pay the subscription price. Hats off the the Redmond Geniuses - I'm rooting for linux competition - it is badly needed!
11 posted on
08/14/2003 10:10:57 AM PDT by
SES1066
To: paulat
Take off the tin foil. Microsoft is just flawed software.
14 posted on
08/14/2003 10:16:21 AM PDT by
mhking
To: paulat
Worst. Post. Ever.

18 posted on
08/14/2003 10:19:10 AM PDT by
Lunatic Fringe
(When news breaks, we fix it.)
To: paulat
It was Bill Gates himself that created the hole and the worm, he secretly hates Windows and is trying to push people over to Linux.
21 posted on
08/14/2003 10:20:31 AM PDT by
tonyinv
To: paulat
26 posted on
08/14/2003 10:32:18 AM PDT by
Redcloak
(All work and no FReep makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no FReep make s Jack a dul boy. Allwork an)
To: paulat
I don't think this is the case but if you use the follow the money theory the ones that really gain from all this are the anti-virus software companies.
But again, I don't think they had a hand in it but they do make huge bucks every time there's a new virus/trojan outbreak.
So let's see, that would mean there's a conspiracy between MS and Symantec and McAfee, et al. MS opens the holes and they sell the software to plug them.
To: paulat
36 posted on
08/14/2003 10:42:47 AM PDT by
beckett
To: paulat
1) MSFT knows it put out flawed software. Spurious charge. I've never met flawless software - the creativity and genius of idiots cannot be overestimated.
2) MSFT knows that a hostile hacker could take malicious advantage of the flaws.
Which is why, when the flaw in RPC was brought to their attention, they issued a patch July 16th to correct the flaw
3) MSFT knows that no one has been downloading the patches they've been sending out.
Anyone managing a windows machine is causing themselves problems if they refuse to get patches that MS issues to address exposed bugs.
4) MSFT sends out a relatively benign worm that does not destroy data, but gets users to update their machines. 5) MSFT deflects suspicion by putting a "Billy" message in the worm, and intimates that the real weapon will be directed at MSFT on Saturday.
I disagree, I see a worm written by someone hoping to give MS a black eye by first compromising machines that people were too lazy or ignorant to patch, and then using those compromised machines to perform a DOS attack against MS
5a) MSFT doesn't direct the worm at old versions of Windows because they don't care about them any more and provide almost no support.
Or maybe the real reason is that the service the worm exploits doesn't exist in the previous OS. It would help your case to know what you're talking about.
6) MSFT gets mildly annoyed customers to download the patches, and, probably, to pay more attention to patches in the future. 7) On Saturday, MSFT can claim that it has successfully fought off the worm. 8) Ergo, MSFT has covered its posterior. 9) Someone in Redmond will be getting a big, big raise.
This isn't show business, there is such a thing as bad publicity, and there are plenty of alternatives to MS if people care to explore and invest in them.
To: paulat
It's actually pretty easy to prevent. Just close the ports that the worm attacks.
39 posted on
08/14/2003 10:44:33 AM PDT by
FierceDraka
("I am not a number - I am a FREE MAN!")
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson