MS: Patching obsolete OS
Microsoft is responding to the latest effort by a group of security researchers to patch a hole it its products. As TechWatch reported earlier today, ZERT, the Zeroday Emergency Response Team, has released a patch for a Virtual Markup Language (VML) hole in unsupported versions of Windows, including Windows '98 and some versions of Windows 2000.
In an e-mail response to TechWatch, Microsoft said, through its PR agency, Microsoft said that the company "is aware of third party mitigations that attempt to block exploitation of vulnerabilities in Microsoft software." The company "appreciate(s) the steps these vendors and independent security researchers are taking to provide our customers with mitigations," but doesn't vouche for ZERT's patch. Duh.
On the issue of patching unsupported OS's, though, Microsoft is a bit more stern. "These products have reached the point of architectural obsolescence. It would be irresponsible to convey a false sense of security by extending public support for these older products," the company said in an e-mail. Maybe so, but I'm guessing enterprise networks with vulnerable '98 and W2K boxes will choose false security over no security at all.
Source : InfoWorld
"These products have reached the point of architectural obsolescence."
How does that make Windows XP any different from Microsoft's unsupported OS's?
In an e-mail response to TechWatch, Microsoft said, through its PR agency, Microsoft said that the company "is aware of third party mitigations that attempt to block exploitation of vulnerabilities in Microsoft software." The company "appreciate(s) the steps these vendors and independent security researchers are taking to provide our customers with mitigations," but doesn't vouche for ZERT's patch. Duh.
On the issue of patching unsupported OS's, though, Microsoft is a bit more stern. "These products have reached the point of architectural obsolescence. It would be irresponsible to convey a false sense of security by extending public support for these older products," the company said in an e-mail. Maybe so, but I'm guessing enterprise networks with vulnerable '98 and W2K boxes will choose false security over no security at all.
Source : InfoWorld
"These products have reached the point of architectural obsolescence."
How does that make Windows XP any different from Microsoft's unsupported OS's?
posted by vanish at 4:01 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home