On 3/29/06, n3td3v <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Third party patches, a matter of trust > > Why are third party patches a bad thing?
they are only a bad thing if they are not trusted and not well tested. > They force Microsoft to rush out a patch before > Q.A testing has been fully completed in the time scale > Microsoft would have initially hoped. M$ is never forced to do anything. a short / inadequate test cycle for the third party patch is indeed something to consider though. (presumably anyone deploying a third party patch is also doing much more testing than they would for a M$ tested and sanctioned patch) > Is it responsible for eEye to release a third party patch before Microsoft? absolutely. is it responsible for any system administrator to apply the eEye patch? that depends on trust and testing... :) _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
