This is a very old question and most people are entrenched on one side or the other already but for what its worth.....
MS first gives you the chance to not accept its EULA so when you click "I Accept" you should have read that MS is no longer liable for what a virus or hacker is able to do to your system. This leads to the real issue, is MS code any more buggy than Linux or Oracle or any other major software maker. Probably not, but the nature of MS and its massive success in the market makes them the target of choice. You end up with the vast majority of hackers and virus writers targeting MS products since they have the largest market % and the coder can hence have the most impact. I'm waiting patiently for the day when Linux in some form or another has a large enough market share to become the new target. All of the Linux lovers will instantly be shocked by the attacks found in the open source they have come to love so much. The companies who deployed the open source will have to internally fund patches and fixes for the exploits as hackers run rampant through their systems. >From a corporate perspective that paints a pretty scary and expensive picture. Patches released from a single source look pretty attractive and the time needed to deploy a corporate wide patch becomes much less daunting when compared to keeping a fully staffed programming team only to deal with coding fixes and patches for your internal open source deployment. With MS and the other large software/hardware vendors come a massive support infrastructure and the piece of mind that when problems are discovered they will be fixed by the experts who wrote the code in the first place. It's for this reason you will see very few large scale deployments of open source into enterprise level companies. So to end my rant: No MS is not liable and I don't believe they should be. Why not hang (or better yet HIRE) the hackers and virus writers who create the destructive code, but don't blame MS for being the target of the efforts of the hacker community. Tim -----Original Message----- From: Ronish Mehta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 3:19 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Microsot Liability for vulnerabilities Hi all, As we all know, M$ licences are very expensive (both one-time & recurring cost). We also know that new vulnerabilities are discovered regularly (we may say monthly just to be kind) These vulnerabilities are exploited by viruses and hackers, and these may cause damage to our computer systems, and may involve additional cost to protect ourselves against these threats, we have to apply latest patches, use uptodate antiviruses. In a large organisation deploying patches may be a real headache (I know because I'm in this situation ;) and may involve additional cost I was just wondering if Microsoft does not have a part of responsibility in all this? After all we are paying this company a fortune for OS and applications that contain vulnerabilities/bugs. Should we continue to pay Microsoft for its buggy software packages? Can we sue it for the damages that it can potentially cause to our company (interms of cost, reputation, etc)? Thanks for your views __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------ --- Evaluating SSL VPNs' Consider NEOTERIS, chosen as leader by top analysts! The Gartner Group just put Neoteris in the top of its Magic Quadrant, while InStat has confirmed Neoteris as the leader in marketshare. Find out why, and see how you can get plug-n-play secure remote access in about an hour, with no client, server changes, or ongoing maintenance. Visit us at: http://www.neoteris.com/promos/sf-6-9.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
