On Tue, 16 May 2017 20:55:37 -0600, "Keith Medcalf" said: > > On Tuesday, 16 May, 2017 18:13, Valdis Kletnieks <val...@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 first > >> 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.
pgp87aeORfKPX.pgp
Description: PGP signature
