Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft Finally To Patch 17-Year-Old Bug

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the not-quite-barely-legal dept.

Bug 251

eldavojohn writes "Microsoft is due for a very large patch this month, in which five critical holes (that render Windows hijackable by an intruder) are due to be fixed, in addition to twenty other problems. The biggest change addresses a 17-year-old bug dating back to the days of DOS, discovered in January by their BFF Google. The patch should roll out February 9th."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Linux Patch (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31042762)

Now hopefully Linus will finally patch that one problem in Linux, where it's a big bloated pile of shit.

Re:Linux Patch (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31042836)

As opposed to [imgur.com] ?

You joke, but I think he'd like to (4, Interesting)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | more than 4 years ago | (#31043070)

"We are not the streamlined, small, hyper-efficient kernel I envisioned 15 years ago. Our kernel is huge and bloated. Whenever we add a new feature, it only gets worse." -- Linus Torvalds [computerworlduk.com] , September 2009.

Re:You joke, but I think he'd like to (0, Troll)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 4 years ago | (#31043100)

He doesn't joke, he trolls.

I though I wonder if Linus meant "We are not the streamlined, small, hyper-efficient microkernel I envisioned 15 years ago.".

Re:Linux Patch (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31043260)

"And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight. And the LORD said, Even thus shall the children of Israel eat their defiled bread among the Gentiles, whither I will drive them." (Ezekiel 4:12-13) [blueletterbible.org]

Sounds like Linux.

oldest bug evar... and other leet speechisms (1)

perlchild (582235) | more than 4 years ago | (#31042764)

Is this a record(for a bug that's "known about" anyways?

Re:oldest bug evar... and other leet speechisms (4, Interesting)

Ralish (775196) | more than 4 years ago | (#31042870)

Not even close: The 25-Year-Old BSD Bug [slashdot.org] .

Re:oldest bug evar... and other leet speechisms (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31043438)

No wonder BSD is dying.

Re:oldest bug evar... and other leet speechisms (2, Insightful)

jabbathewocket (1601791) | more than 4 years ago | (#31043480)

Reading the summary, nevermind the article would have kept both of you and the poster above you from posting sillyness.. The bug exists in a bit of 17 year old code, but was discovered last month... so not even remotely "old"

Re:oldest bug evar... and other leet speechisms (4, Informative)

nicknamenotavailable (1730990) | more than 4 years ago | (#31042898)

Is this a record(for a bug that's "known about" anyways?

A while ago OpenBSD developer found a 33 year old bug [slashdot.org] .
It depends on your definition of "known about" I guess.

Re:oldest bug evar... and other leet speechisms (2, Insightful)

jabbathewocket (1601791) | more than 4 years ago | (#31043470)

since this bug was "discovered" in january its only chance at being a record would be the rapid turnaround in getting it patched..

By that I mean, rapid turnaround on Microsoft scale from disclosure in January, through to early Feb patching..

Re:oldest bug evar... and other leet speechisms (2, Funny)

eparker05 (1738842) | more than 4 years ago | (#31043472)

I don't know if this counts... but the year 2038 problem is coming up in another 28 years. Something tells me that the public will be less riled up about this one. I don't foresee a rise in cult membership or survivalist magazine sales.

Nothing quite like a "timely" response (5, Interesting)

msobkow (48369) | more than 4 years ago | (#31042766)

How in the world can a bug exist for 17 years when they've released so many versions of Windows in that time? Hasn't the kernel been revamped three times? (Win98/ME, WinNT/Win2K/WinXP, Vista/7)

Re:Nothing quite like a "timely" response (4, Insightful)

chill (34294) | more than 4 years ago | (#31042788)

Backwards compatibility FTW! The one thing that if Microsoft broke, they'd have a serious OS horserace on their hands. Then anyone would be free to simply choose OS X, Linux or anything else just on merits and not "it runs all my old software".

Re:Nothing quite like a "timely" response (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31043420)

none of the stupid fucks in this subthread know what they are talking about

Re:Nothing quite like a "timely" response (4, Informative)

SEE (7681) | more than 4 years ago | (#31042790)

Um, no. The bug was introduced in Windows NT 3.1, and has remained in the NT line ever since. Windows 7 is very much still built on the NT codebase.

Re:Nothing quite like a "timely" response (3, Informative)

Brain_Recall (868040) | more than 4 years ago | (#31042920)

And just to clarify, this bug was only discovered (at least by someone willing to disclose it) in January 2010. At least Microsoft didn't brush it under the rug for 17 years, I hope...

Re:Nothing quite like a "timely" response (-1, Troll)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#31043234)

Aaahh... That’s closed-source for you. Can you smell it?
.
.
*blaaarrgghh*
.
God.That’s awful!

Re:Nothing quite like a "timely" response (1)

glitch23 (557124) | more than 4 years ago | (#31043362)

The bug was found in a utility anyway, not the kernel, so even if XP hadn't carried the torch of the previous NT kernel and had been revamped instead, the bug would still be in XP and other recent version of Windows.

Re:Nothing quite like a "timely" response (2, Informative)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 4 years ago | (#31042798)

This has to my knowledge, nothing to do with the kernel. It's a bug in a program used to run older applications. It was only found to be a problem very recently. Until now there was no real understanding that the bug existed and thus no reason to change that part of the OSes.

Re:Nothing quite like a "timely" response (4, Informative)

supersat (639745) | more than 4 years ago | (#31042810)

Windows 7 is Windows NT 6.1 [wikipedia.org] . NT has been in development for over 20 years.

Re:Nothing quite like a "timely" response (1, Informative)

Jon Abbott (723) | more than 4 years ago | (#31043036)

I always hated how the Windows 2000 startup screen [winsupersite.com] said "Built on NT Technology", because "NT" itself stood for "New Technology". I guess it's just another case of RAS syndrome.

Re:Nothing quite like a "timely" response (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31043132)

Like "LOL IBM, we just fucked you in the RAS!"

Re:Nothing quite like a "timely" response (5, Funny)

noisyinstrument (1624451) | more than 4 years ago | (#31043366)

If I had got a dollar for every time I had to correct someone for RAS syndrome style mistakes I'd never have to visit an ATM machine again.

Idiots!

Re:Nothing quite like a "timely" response (1)

gparent (1242548) | more than 4 years ago | (#31043038)

It's actually 7.0. The 6.1 was a technical decision to keep compatibility with broken applications.

Re:Nothing quite like a "timely" response (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31043336)

no.. that was just the excuse they gave. the real reason is that 7 isn't much of a code change from vista.

Re:Nothing quite like a "timely" response (-1, Flamebait)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 4 years ago | (#31042856)

Rather easily...

Windows 3.1 - 7 are often based on the same code set. A security flaw back in windows 3.1 was back then a small detail considering that to get into windows 3.1 you need to type in "win" at the DOS window. Where in DOS you can do basicly anything you wanted.

So It wasn't fixed. Security wasn't a real issue for Microsoft until Windows NT 4.0 by then the code segment would be considered safe or good as it has been there so long. When you have millions lines of code doing a security audit will leave holes you skip parts that you know works well.

Re:Nothing quite like a "timely" response (2, Informative)

siride (974284) | more than 4 years ago | (#31042916)

You have no idea what you are talking about. Read the other comments for the details. This is a bug in the ntvdm subsystem which was a newly (at the time) written system for running 16-bit apps on 32-bit Windows.

Re:Nothing quite like a "timely" response (5, Informative)

bheer (633842) | more than 4 years ago | (#31042960)

> Windows 3.1 - 7 are often based on the same code set.

You, sir, do not have the vaguest idea of what you are talking about.

> to get into windows 3.1 you need to type in "win" at the DOS window.

I thought for a moment you meant Windows *NT* 3.1 - 7, but ... it's clear that you didn't mean that.

FWIW, this bug affects all NT OSes right back to NT 3.1 (the first released version) and is an obscure kernel bug (it was only found in January 2010!). The BBC article was light on details except to say it "involves a utility that allows newer versions of Windows to run very old programs", but there's more detail from the always-excellent full-disclosure mailing list [neohapsis.com] .

Re:Nothing quite like a "timely" response (3, Informative)

bheer (633842) | more than 4 years ago | (#31043002)

Er, from a better read of full-disclosure, I see it was reported in June 2009, not Jan 2010 as I stated earlier. Still, that's a long time for a bug to have gone un-noticed.

Re:Nothing quite like a "timely" response (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31042986)

Not really

It's since Windows NT 3.1 not Windows 3.1. The first is 32bit and the latter is 16bit. And no the code set is not the same in Windows 3.1 and Windows NT any version...

Anyways, check the article and wikipedia the rest if you really want to know.

Re:Nothing quite like a "timely" response (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31042882)

Because it's part of WoW32, the old emulator for 16 bit applications.

Shockingly, this shouldn't exist in any of the 64-bit windows versions because they don't have WoW32 (they have WoW64, and drop support altogether for 16 bit).

Re:Nothing quite like a "timely" response (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31043134)

can't you run WOW32 in WOW64?

Re:Nothing quite like a "timely" response (1)

swinefc (91418) | more than 4 years ago | (#31043280)

WOW! You just blew my mind

Better late than never... (0, Redundant)

creimer (824291) | more than 4 years ago | (#31042772)

Wow! I didn't know that the DOS code was so complicated that it took 17 years to fix.

Re:Better late than never... (1)

AikonMGB (1013995) | more than 4 years ago | (#31043020)

You mispronounced "so unused that it took 17 years to find."

Re:Better late than never... (1)

creimer (824291) | more than 4 years ago | (#31043124)

[putting on anti-grammar Nazis hat]

Isn't that supposed to be "miswrote" instead of "mispronounced" since 1) I didn't verbally say anything and 2) I very much doubt you could hear me without being in the same room.

[taking off anti-grammar Nazis hat]

Windows NT (1)

dawilcox (1409483) | more than 4 years ago | (#31042802)

Wasn't Windows NT developed from the ground up separately from DOS? If it's developed separately from DOS (no copy and paste), would it really have the same bugs as DOS (for all intents and purposes an unrelated operating system). This feels like to me Microsoft fixing an error that has been around ever since Linux...

Re:Windows NT (4, Informative)

supersat (639745) | more than 4 years ago | (#31042850)

It's not a bug in DOS, but a bug in the NT virtual 8086 machine monitor [seclists.org] . Since hardly anyone still runs DOS applications, it's not surprising that it took so long for the bug to be discovered. It's a feature that's not often thought about.

Re:Windows NT (2, Insightful)

mysidia (191772) | more than 4 years ago | (#31043128)

Yes... the only question is... Why didn't Microsoft disable running DOS apps by default?

Since hardly anyone does it, and the facility is only provided for backwards compatibility, it ought to require explicit manual admin action to enable.

Given the security risk exposure of having such a rarely-used feature exposed as part of the potential attack surface.

Re:Windows NT (1)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 4 years ago | (#31043180)

Or MS could do what they should have done with XP and just included DOS as an OS image running inside of a PC emulator.

Re:Windows NT (2, Insightful)

slimjim8094 (941042) | more than 4 years ago | (#31043422)

That's what the NTVDM *is*. It's effectively a virtual machine, though it's closer to a virtualizer than a simulator (more like VirtualBox than Bochs)

Re:Windows NT (2, Informative)

cusco (717999) | more than 4 years ago | (#31043258)

You'd be surprised. Until two years ago the agents' interface to one of the national insurance firms was a 16-bit app dating from the days of Win 3.11.

Re:Windows NT (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 4 years ago | (#31043326)

Why is that a surprise. Businesses here still use programs running under OS/2 1.1

Re:Windows NT (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 4 years ago | (#31043364)

Then, they would be one of the few windows users who would need the feature manually enabled by the admin for that one program.

But it doesn't need to be enabled in general so that arbitrary programs can easily be run in 16-bit mode just by downloading them and double-clicking a .EXE or .PIF.

Re:Windows NT (1, Interesting)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#31043408)

Backwards compatibility was Windows' great asset. Note that it is somewhat gone in Windows 7, unless they've fixed things such that Civ II Multiplayer Gold works, or the five or so other games I tried. It and Battlezone (another fail when I tried it) fail in VirtualBox OSE (haven't tried the real one) but work in VMware Workstation... under Windows XP. In the XP days it was still possible to just double-click most DOS games' executable to show off just how antiquated Windows could pretend to be. Dunno how that's working out on Windows 7; certainly XP would run a lot less DOS software than DOS, shock amazement. In fact I had DOSBOX installed on XP to run something or other that flailed on XP. Now I use DOSBOX and Windows XP in VMware workstation since my Gigabyte motherboard won't install XP (Gigabyte says "it works here") to play my games under Linux. It's amazing how well some games work in a virtual machine, 3D and all.

Re:Windows NT (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31042884)

this post is an annoying piece of dribble...

get a clue...

Patch Tuesday ahead. (1)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#31042808)

This is a rather odd story to drop into the Slashdot cycle on a Friday Night (East Coast USA), it's basically just a warning that the typical Patch Tuesday (Second Tuesday of every month) is next week and the typical 0-day bugs that will be fixed which leads to the "bad guys" finding out what the bug was and deploying their attacks in the next few days.

This really is a notice to the IT guys and people who don't have automatic update downloads installed... nothing newsworthy or out of the normal cycle of things.

Re:Patch Tuesday ahead. (2, Funny)

creimer (824291) | more than 4 years ago | (#31042868)

The /. editors are making up for having too many Apple stories since the introduction of the iPad. Now resuming normal "[Microsoft] Evil Empire Bashing" programming. Enjoy!

Re:Patch Tuesday ahead. (1)

xactuary (746078) | more than 4 years ago | (#31042874)

So let's be clear. Every second Tuesday, until hell freezes over, will be a critical windows update event. Heck of a job Stevie.

Not discovered in January (5, Informative)

WD (96061) | more than 4 years ago | (#31042826)

Tavis disclosed the ntvdm vulnerability in January, however it was reported to Microsoft on June 12, 2009.
http://lists.grok.org.uk/pipermail/full-disclosure/2010-January/072549.html [grok.org.uk]

Re:Not discovered in January (1, Interesting)

Gilandune (1266114) | more than 4 years ago | (#31043130)

Which still doesnt make it 17 years, like most of these comments assume in their madman ravings...

Re:Not discovered in January (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31043290)

Neither does it make in 1 month, like most of these comments assume in their madman ravings...

Re:Not discovered in January (1, Redundant)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#31043380)

Which still doesnt make it 17 years, like most of these comments assume in their madman ravings...

The time the vulnerability was reported has zero bearing on how long the bug has existed.

When is /. going to actually do more then just (1, Insightful)

Liquidrage (640463) | more than 4 years ago | (#31042830)

ms bash?

A bug no one knew about is being patched a month after it's found. WTG ms?

News for nerds? Or news for those that line your coffers?

Re:When is /. going to actually do more then just (1)

poopdeville (841677) | more than 4 years ago | (#31043034)

Argh, as if bash and Unix's reliance on it wasn't bad enough, there's an MS bash now?

Re:When is /. going to actually do more then just (0, Redundant)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 4 years ago | (#31043304)

MS Bash? For a second there, I thought this was about a bug being found in a long-abandoned Microsoft bash shell.

Sorry buddy, Microsoft has a really bad reputation. They retarded the progress of computers for years while pushing out inferior, buggy products supported by unethical, monopolistic business practices. A lot of people here had to deal with that personally and still bear a grudge.

Re:When is /. going to actually do more then just (-1, Troll)

Liquidrage (640463) | more than 4 years ago | (#31043368)

Sorry bud. They didn't retard a fucking thing. Back when they really took over with Windows 3.1 there wasn't anything out there better that was as easy to use for most people. 95 was a great OS. NT was a great server OS for it's niche (easy to set up and install for non mission critical servers), 2000 was a great server OS. XP was a great OS. 7 is a great OS. 2003 is a great server OS.

There's some clunkers in there. ME. Vista gets a worse rap then it is.

Outlook is the best mail server there is. VS is the best IDE there is and usually has been.

You know who retarded things? IBM and Apple. Fucking the kings of control. Where is there constant bashing? Oh that's right. Not on /.

Re:When is /. going to actually do more then just (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31043486)

Ha ha ha ! Good one Liquid... Oh wait! YOU'RE SERIOUS!?!?!? AH HAH AH AHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAH Ahahhahahahahah AHAhahahahaHAhah!

Moron! What does Bill's anus smell like???

Re:When is /. going to actually do more then just (2, Informative)

Liquidrage (640463) | more than 4 years ago | (#31043318)

Fuck you mods and your troll bullshit. /. is owned by a company that has a stake in FOSS. It would be like ars being owned by a company with a stake in HD-DVD and posting any story about blu-ray in a negative light (back when there was a format war).

Every fucking headline or story about MS is painted in a bad way, and I'd say about half the stories deserve a retraction as can be seen in the threads. Other stories like this aren't even fucking news. And the headline is sensational. It's not news for nerds. It's news for nerds with a major bias.

Wow that's surprising! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31042848)

So DOS code is now considered a bug?

What is a "BFF"? (2)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 4 years ago | (#31042860)

Best F'ing Friend?

Re:What is a "BFF"? (1)

pinkj (521155) | more than 4 years ago | (#31042910)

Best Friend Forever! XD 3 3 3 !!!!

Re:What is a "BFF"? (2, Funny)

Haymaker (1664103) | more than 4 years ago | (#31043296)

I'm sorry but your butt chins are getting out of control.

Re:What is a "BFF"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31042950)

BillGatesFuckFriend

Re:What is a "BFF"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31042954)

No, Best F**k Friend!

Re:What is a "BFF"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31043012)

Butt-Fuck Friend? Or in the case of file extensions, I think it's "Big Fucking File"

Re:What is a "BFF"? (1)

biryokumaru (822262) | more than 4 years ago | (#31043014)

IDK, my BFF Jill?

Re:What is a "BFF"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31043378)

bottom field first

Re:What is a "BFF"? (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#31043446)

"Best Friend[s] Forever"

a bug thats older then i am lol (2, Funny)

cryoman23 (1646557) | more than 4 years ago | (#31042918)

17 year old bug and a 14 year old kid reading about the bug(that doesn't effect me btw)

Re:a bug thats older then i am lol (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31043084)

Finish your homework and get in bed! :)

Re:a bug thats older then i am lol (0, Offtopic)

cryoman23 (1646557) | more than 4 years ago | (#31043174)

mom... howd u know i was on /. better yet howd u know my user name....

Re:a bug thats older then i am lol (1)

nicknamenotavailable (1730990) | more than 4 years ago | (#31043328)

mom... howd u know i was on /. better yet howd u know my user name....

Moms just know.
It's one of those 'eyes in the back of your head' things.

I remember my mom...
She wasn't at all pleased.
But now with DSL you can see so many more pictures than with dial-up.

Re:a bug thats older then i am lol (1)

siride (974284) | more than 4 years ago | (#31043388)

Homework on a Friday night?

sigh... (0, Troll)

the1337g33k (1268908) | more than 4 years ago | (#31042924)

Yet another reason I avoid Windows and run for the hills with my linux box, if Windows was patched in a timely matter instead of being vulnerable for weeks, months, 17 years or when the media s**ts their pants, then I just might look at using it.

Just a thought...

Re:sigh... (2, Insightful)

siride (974284) | more than 4 years ago | (#31042938)

Remember that BSD bug that sat around for about the same length of time? Yeah, it happens everywhere.

Of course, this is only a bug that can be exploited by 16-bit programs and only on 32-bit Windows. Since I run neither of those, it's not even a problem for folks like me.

Re:sigh... (1)

the1337g33k (1268908) | more than 4 years ago | (#31042984)

Touche, however I should have mentioned that I was mainly referring to microsoft waiting to release their patches until "Microsoft Tuesday", whereas linux releases patches as soon as the fix is discovered

Re:sigh... (1)

siride (974284) | more than 4 years ago | (#31043090)

And then you wait till whenever your distro updates the kernel, and that's if you are bleeding edge. Otherwise, you wait for backports. It's probably fast enough, but there's no guarantee you get it the day of.

Re:sigh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31043116)

Real bleeding edge users build their own kernels from snapshot or linux-next on kernel.org FYI

Re:sigh... (1)

Ziekheid (1427027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31042948)

You seriously have no idea what you're talking about. But enjoy being ignorant and naieve about things like this, because problems alike do not exist for other OS's, only in Windows.. right?

Re:sigh... (0, Troll)

the1337g33k (1268908) | more than 4 years ago | (#31043016)

i forgot to mention a critical piece involving the wait for Microsoft Tuesday before receiving these patches, unlike other OS'es where you don't have to wait a month for the bug to be fixed (unless as mentioned above about the media crapping a load forcing them to release it out-of-band). Hope that clears up the confusion.

Re:sigh... (1)

Ziekheid (1427027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31043188)

So now you realize your argument failed you try fixing it with a different approach?
Look up the list of unpatched vulnerabilities found in your own OS on securityfocus and realize how even this argument fails.
You clearly don't understand the thorough testing some patches go through before they go live. Besides, severe security issues are patches outside the patchcycle on a regular base.

Re:sigh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31043360)

All operating systems do have their flaws and linux is certainly no exception here.

@OP: This argument might have gone better had you not mentioned linux and kept it neutral? Loyalty to an OS is OK, but waving the flag around on slashdot is like shouting your gay around a group of guys.

Hooray for you typical Slashdot idiot! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31042956)

Here's your gold star!

Re:Hooray for you typical Slashdot idiot! (-1, Offtopic)

the1337g33k (1268908) | more than 4 years ago | (#31043022)

Hooray for you typical slashdot troll!

Cicada bug? (5, Funny)

nicknamenotavailable (1730990) | more than 4 years ago | (#31042942)

Let's call it the Cicada [wikipedia.org] bug.

A Cicada has a life-cycle of 17 years.
Now Microsoft is about to squash it.

Re:Cicada bug? (1)

biryokumaru (822262) | more than 4 years ago | (#31043028)

If I squash the Cicada in my computer, will it finally stop making that clicking noise whenever it's working hard?

Re:Cicada bug? (2, Funny)

Angst Badger (8636) | more than 4 years ago | (#31043300)

Don't worry. Some of the bugs created by Microsoft this year will be around in 17 years, too.

"Finally"? (5, Insightful)

holygoat (564732) | more than 4 years ago | (#31043026)

Isn't it a little disingenuous to say "finally" when the bug was discovered last month?

That it was introduced 17 years ago doesn't mean that Microsoft has been tardy about fixing it...

bff (2, Funny)

thehostiles (1659283) | more than 4 years ago | (#31043126)

Just pointing out that "Microsoft's BFF, Google" deserves a placement in internet culture

Culture of insecurity (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31043140)

The sad thing with MS is that you can point out a problem to them, show them exactly how to fix it and they still do nothing. A business case must be made for every change which goes into their products which has to justify not only the cost of making the change but that of updating all the associated test plans and the financial impact of all future regression testing. It is much less frustrating to leak a security hole and let them patch it as an attempt to wipe the egg from their face, IMHO.

Re:Culture of insecurity (0, Redundant)

Liquidrage (640463) | more than 4 years ago | (#31043302)

It was just found a month ago and they are fixing it now. Of course, you are right. But in this case, you are not right.

Re:Culture of insecurity (1)

blackraven14250 (902843) | more than 4 years ago | (#31043406)

It was reported to M$ in June 2009.

This is great news! (4, Funny)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 4 years ago | (#31043192)

This is excellent news for Digital Research! With these latest patches, DR-DOS can finally run the latest version of Windows without any spurious error messages. This is a great day!

Re:This is great news! (5, Funny)

Obstin8 (827030) | more than 4 years ago | (#31043382)

Sorry man, you're posting a comment that just proves you're way too old to be commenting on /.

First, most of the current batch of MCSEs (is that acronym still allowed?) will be replying to you asking for the 800 number for Dr. Dos. I suggest you send them to the Dr. Who site.

Second, your reference to an obscure company called Digital Research will confuse the weenies. DRI.COM now resolves to a site for Colburn's Travels. It appears Mr. Colburn has achieved more mileage from the site than DRI ever did. Check the stats.

Lastly, you're really confusing people with the whole concept of a 'spurious' error. Microsoft has - through the determined, repetitive, and consistent application of "innovation" - eliminated all spurious errors from the code-base. All errors are now completely intentional, rational and self-explanatory. Click here for more information. :)

Average Wait For Bug Fixes (4, Funny)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 4 years ago | (#31043244)

That's really going to screw up their average response time numbers...

If it was just discovered, why make fun of them? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31043370)

It's not like Microsoft is the fool here. Well, of course they are, for not finding a bug in their software. but if nobody found it up till now, it's no reason to make fun of Microsoft more than to make fun of people searching for bugs on Microsoft software.
This, of course, is without thinking about the fact that the bug has been reported 2 months ago.
But come on, Apple and Linux fanboys are just going to jump on this headline without reading any of the facts...

Meh (1)

tengeta (1594989) | more than 4 years ago | (#31043414)

To be honest, it doesn't sound that dangerous if it took that damn long to figure it out. Now it is, but its getting patched. Question here is, did anyone know about it before and abuse it while keeping tight lips? If so, they may really pissed to know its done.

yummy (1)

Jesus IS the Devil (317662) | more than 4 years ago | (#31043468)

BFF, how cute...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?