Microsoft itself didn't install the patch on their own network and it caused
them a lot of problems.(in a lot of places)
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-982305.html
The security problem is that MS suddenly is "coming to Jesus" and is now
trying to bolt it on. Not as effective as building it in from the ground
up. (eg notice how many security certifications SQL Server has - maybe 1)
Security like performance is part of the software developer's job and starts
from day one, not we'll address the issue later.
Jim
--
Replace part of the email address: kennedy-down_with_spammers_at_attbi.com
with family. Remove the negative part, keep the minus sign. You can figure
it out.
"Ellen K." <72322.enno.esspeeayem.1016_at_compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:2ucc3vc8fd6kv0hdsfcg2s6e2siu5vqjv6_at_4ax.com...
> Microsoft put out a patch LAST JULY that would have prevented getting
> hit . If some "admins" are such idiots that they don't keep up...
>
> On Sun, 26 Jan 2003 20:45:46 +0100, hjp-usenet_at_hjp.at (Peter J.
> Holzer) wrote:
>
> >On 2003-01-26 17:27, Ellen K. <72322.enno.esspeeayem.1016_at_compuserve.com>
wrote:
> >> If SQL Server is twice as fast, why do you want to use Oracle in the
> >> first place, given that it is more expensive and more difficult to
> >> administer?
> >
> >January 25th 2003.
> >
> > SCNR,
> > hp
>
Received on Tue Jan 28 2003 - 06:33:21 CST
