Please run windows update now
josh at imaginenetworksllc.com
Wed May 17 04:19:05 UTC 2017
Can we end this thread? I think the original intent has come and gone.
1100 Wayne St
Troy, OH 45373
On May 16, 2017 11:40 PM, <valdis.kletnieks at vt.edu> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 May 2017 20:55:37 -0600, "Keith Medcalf" said:
> > On Tuesday, 16 May, 2017 18:13, Valdis Kletnieks <valdis at vt.edu> wrote:
> > > On Tue, 16 May 2017 16:41:36 -0600, "Keith Medcalf" said:
> > >> Of course Microsoft knew, since they wrote in the backdoor in the
> > >> place. That is why when informed by their employers that the backdoor
> > >> was going to be made public, they could undo the changes they had
> > >> introduced so rapidly.
> > > Do you have any actual evidence or citations that in fact, this was an
> > > intentionally inserted backdoor?
> > Equal in quantity and quality to the evidence to the contrary.
> In that case, "Of course Microsoft didn't know" is equally probable.
> In fact, it's *more* probable, because if it was intentional, they'd
> have to have ways in place to make sure that if some random programmer
> managed to find it and report it, the bug wouldn't get fixed - and the
> fact that there was a long-standing bug not fixed didn't get noticed by
> the QA team and the rest. After all, once some TLA paid good money to
> get that backdoor installed, the *last* thing you want happening is the
> sentence, "What do you mean, you accidentally fixed it?"
> Plus, since "Microsoft didn't intentionally put the MS17-010 bug in as
> a backdoor" is the null hypothesis, it requires zero evidence, and it's
> your job to bring positive evidence for the non-null hypothesis.
More information about the NANOG