Microsoft sued for security faults

SpinnerSpinner Birmingham, UK
edited October 2003 in Science & Tech
It seems Mr. Gates and co, a.k.a Microsoft, are facing a class-action lawsuit in California, based on the claim that the software giants market-dominant software is vulnerable to malicous programs, capable of triggering massive failures in networked computers worldwide.

The lawsuit also claims that Microsoft's security warnings are much too complex to be understood by the average 'Joe Internet' and more often than not, simply serve to show hackers how to exploit the company's software.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of a single plaintiff and a potential class of millions of dissatified Microsoft customers.
"Microsoft's eclipsing dominance in desktop software has created a global security risk," the suit says. "As a result of Microsoft's concerted effort to strengthen and expand its monopolies by tightly integrating applications with its operating system ... the world's computer networks are now susceptible to massive, cascading failure."

The full report:
http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/02/technology/microsoft_lawsuit.reut/index.htm?cnn=yes

Comments

  • JBJB Carlsbad, CA
    edited October 2003
    This wave of lawsuits has to stop at some point. The 'Average computer joe' is also to blame for not setting security preferences,not running anti-virus software, and downloading/executing malicious code. It is true that the software has bugs, by many of these problems arise because the user failed to pacth their computer. If you hate your version of windows that much run linux, buy a mac, or quit using your computer.
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited October 2003
    1. Windows 2000 + XP receives higher security rating than Linux from #1 security auditing firm in the world. The highest of all consumer OSes.

    2. Firm assumes patches are entirely up to date.

    3. People have security problems.

    4. This means people aren't patching.

    5. This means people are ****ing retarded for trying to sue.

    6. This means the cost of the legal proceedings should be placed entirely upon the initiator of the proceedings.
  • LeonardoLeonardo Wake up and smell the glaciers Eagle River, Alaska Icrontian
    edited October 2003
    Well yes, every version of Windows has security flaws. I won't compare it to other operating systems because I don't have the requisite knowledge of other OSes.

    I will say this: So MS is getting sued because their OS isn't perfect?
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited October 2003
    Right.
  • Omega65Omega65 Philadelphia, Pa
    edited October 2003
    I hate to say it, but Critical Patches should be a Mandatory download and install
  • TheBaronTheBaron Austin, TX
    edited October 2003
    the only reason they're not is because at least 75% of people still use dialup, what do you tell them when they find out they have to download 50 megs of critical updates because they've never done it before?

    (my answer would be, ITS YOUR FAULT, DO IT ANYWAY, but still)
  • SpinnerSpinner Birmingham, UK
    edited October 2003
    With the exception of my brother, no one I know, even thinks about updating their machine, even if the automatic critical update window pops up, they just close it down without doing anything. Most don't even know what Windows Update is? even though its name makes its purpose completely obvious.

    Everytime I visit their PCs, I have to download tones up critical updates for them, I keep telling them it's important they keep their OS up to date, but they never listen. They just don't understand how important it is.

    Not that I want to give Microsoft more control of peoples PC, but they need to improve the Automatic Update system, built into Windows XP and other recent OS's, so its default settings lean more towards automation than manual control, as it does currently. The whole auto update system needs to be improved as well.

    But I don't blame Microsoft for that, I blame the people, but I suppose it could be looked upon as being Microsoft's responsiblity to keep its software secure, or at least, make more of an effort to educate people about the importance of keeping your PC up to date.

    But when it comes to corporate machines, there should be no excuse. Slay the I.T admin' who doesn't keep his companies PCs up to date.;)
  • celchocelcho Tallahassee, FL Member
    edited October 2003
    microsoft kinda is liable for selling software that isn't perfect. if you look at it from the perspective of the 'average joe' buying windows (or a computer with windows) and using it. these people just expect it to be super simple. windows is pretty simple, but the things that are more complicated or less obvious to someone who doesn't know what they are doing are the most important things. automatic updates requires that you go to windows update to get the patch that includes it. i think sp1 comes with it, but there are zillions of people out there running xp w/o sp1 that don't have automatic updates because they've never been to windows update to get that update.

    windows should have been designed with a very simple updating system that prods you to update unless you tell it not to.

    for this reason, microsoft is somewhat responsible for the problems in windows. sure their os is good, but it's not perfect. the imperfection that makes them potentially liable in this situation is the simplicity of the updates that are obviously of utmost importance while running windows.
  • res0r9lmres0r9lm Florida
    edited October 2003
    you know if windows security was so great you wouldn't need to install patch after patch. If I was to pay my hard earned money on a OS I would expect something in return. I have had a few different version of windows and they weren't nothing but a headache but they are good for playing games.
Sign In or Register to comment.