Microsoft to Release 7 Patches Next Week

craters writes "Microsoft plans to release 7 patches next week for Windows and Office. From the article: 'In the monthly pre-patch notification it sends out five days prior to unveiling fixes, Microsoft said that at least two of the seven will be rated Critical, which by the company's definition means that the vulnerability can be remotely exploited.'"

Lack of bug fixing strategy

[mporcheron]

It appears there is a conflict at Redmond.  In one case they are fixing a bug which has yet to be discovered, in another they are fixing a bug which has existed for around nine months.

It's about time they came up with a proper strategy other than randomly fixing the bugs they want to fix.

Martin

Re:Lack of bug fixing strategy

[voice_of_all_reason]

A   L A T E   F I X   I S   F I N E   T O O

Re:Lack of bug fixing strategy

[Kolisar]

Assuming that M$ actually cares (yes, possibly an exaguration) I will assume that they are fixing the bugs as they are able to and get the fixes tested. It may have taken 9 months to fix the one mentioned so that, based on their tests, the fix does not crash the system. I realize the M$ bashing is fun (and I participate often myself) but I think that this issue is pretty clear.

Microsoft "warned"...?

[Dekortage]

Microsoft warned users...

I don't use Windows systems often, but most of my colleagues and friends do. How exactly has Microsoft warned its users? Pop-up windows? Ads in the local paper? Public service announcements on cable television? Are the requirements for Microsoft repairing computer-disabling software bugs the same as, say, General Motor's obligations for repairing automobile-disabling engineering mistakes (e.g. recalls)?

Among those patches

[dtfinch]

is the Kama Sutra remover that's no longer of any use now that they've waited so long to release it. Now they're just kicking those 3 infected users while their down. They're basically saying "Now that it's deleted all your documents, here's that removal tool we decided not to release a couple weeks ago, so you wouldn't be bothered with an unscheduled patch release."

Re:Microsoft "warned"...?

[flooey]

Are the requirements for Microsoft repairing computer-disabling software bugs the same as, say, General Motor's obligations for repairing automobile-disabling engineering mistakes (e.g. recalls)?

No, they're not. Between current software liability law (or rather, the lack thereof) and EULAs, Microsoft doesn't have any legal obligation to fix anything, let alone let you know that a fix might be available.

Re:Sounds like a good day. . .

[Rodness]

As the parent alludes, bustage from patches is precisely why our corporate network admins have disabled automatic updates via group policy.

They download the patches directly and install them on some test machines, and verify that the patches don't actually break anything critical to our business. They then push the patches out to the rest of the corporate network via a software update service. Usually this happens within just a couple of days after Patch Tuesday.

As a local system admin, the bottom line is that I don't usually need to call out sick to defend my sanity. (or what passes for my sanity).

For that, I have this on my door [userfriendly.org]. (I'm close to winning.)

Re:Microsoft "warned"...?

[Anonymous Coward]

How exactly has Microsoft warned its users? Pop-up windows?

Security mailing list for admins. Windows Auotmatic Update for users (you can set it to notify you, notify and download, or notify, download and install).

Say what will you will about MS, but the Windows Update thingy is about as stupid-proof as it could be. Anyone getting rooted because they didn't have an available patch I have no sympathy for. I use SUSE at work and the susewatcher is more like the "Custom" update feature, which I assume most /. Windows users run for more control.

"/. Windows users...." Did I really say that?