So, if a HIPAA site uses Windows and accepts the SP3 EULA, they're screwed. If a HIPAA site uses Windows and does not accept the SP3 EULA, they're screwed.
Logical conclusion, if a HIPAA site uses Windows, they're screwed. Thus they should use a different OS? -- David Hayes Network Security Operations Center MCI Network Svcs email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] vnet: 777-7236 voice: 972-729-7236 On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 01:13:21PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 08:43:14 PDT, D B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > does the EULA of microsoft violate lawyer client > > privilege ..... as in if my lawyer is using windows > > is he violating my rights > > I can't speak for the legal profession, but the SP3 EULA (the one where you agree to > allow Microsoft to install, without warning or notification, anything labelled a > "security > patch", even if it breaks 3rd party software), is known to be very bad mojo for sites > covered by HIPPA, because it cedes software change control. > > Of course, if you fail to agree to the EULA and you're a HIPPA site, you're still > screwed > because then you can't install post-SP3 patches. > _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
