Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BBKing
I have to take issue with this. One of the main reasons it wasn't implemented earlier is that ntl wanted to continue to offer an unblocked service where all ports were available, however sadly it seems that however much one would like to offer this, the reality is that the service would be better for the majority if this port were blocked, as no matter how much education you do there are people out there who don't know how to (or can't) patch their machines before putting them on the network. Stopping them being infected is the main reason for this, with several thousand installs a week it should cut the infection rate a lot and we can get the CSRs back to dealing with day to day issues, not the consequences of Microsoft's built-in insecurity.
|
With all the practice they have had on writing operating systems you would think that Microsoft would actually get one right without the need for numerous patches.
One has to question whether such a product is of merchantable quality and asking if customers, retailers and wholesalers should be sending the products back to Microsoft with instructions to get them fixed.
It's ironic that the latest viruses have actually done more damage to Windows 2000 and Windows XP and that older products such as the Windowe 98SE which I have are more resistent. Is this an example of retrograde progression where as we move forward the products actually get worse?