wired.com— Microsoft patches DRM faster than fatal security flaws (they care about their record label partners much more than you or the Internet)
Sep 7, 2006View in Crawl 4
for those of you arguing that DRM is easier to patch then a security flaw, the point is irrerelevant. whether it was a 2 line patch or a 5000 line patch, the point is that the DRM patch BROKE the patch cycle and was downloaded immediatley. score one for the "ms are sucking corporate c**k" opinion.
You're lucky you caught that in time, otherwise you would have to be hauled off to Spelling Jail, where you would have been tortured by spelling Nazis.I'm glad that MSDRM has been cracked again. Every time this happens, MS has to run around in circles and waste a ton of $$$ to fix it. Perhaps they will realize that resistance is futile. MS, you can't fight the will of the entire world. Especially that of your paying customers. You only serve big-business and fed interests so much, you have to serve your customers too!
zigamorph"Plus how do we know it wasn't just a one liner. I have found many times in my code just by changing one line of my code might fix a huge bug."Doesn't matter if it is a one-liner, most of the work involved in rolling out a software change is not in the fix, but in the distribution. There's qa testing to make sure that the fix doesn't break something else, the overhead involved in adding it to the list of patches available, the criteria to select target machines, etc. I would be very angry if MS is skimping on the quality assurance side of this just to make sure this restrictions managements stuff is being 'fixed'
Beware astroturf. getting this marked as accurate smells like situation-management to me.ie, informed people will decide (or not) that the story seems valid, uninformed people will be likely to be skeptical (and therefore more supportive of MS) .
Maybe because people are thinking that somewhere down the line Microsoft released something faster, or that a DRM vulnerability is not a security vulnerability. They seem to be forgetting that though its not a problem for an end-users, its still a serious flaw in Microsoft's DRM, something the record labels were not aware of when they signed an agreement with them. Bruce Schneier, the author of the article, as well as the Blowfish algorithm, seems like a pretty reliable source for info about security patches, but maybe that's just me. The title of the digg article is a tad misleading however, lots of exclamations with very little info. The story would have probably gotten more diggs had the submitter mentioned DRM in the title.
dtreeseSep 8, 2006
I'm just happy I got to read "sisyphean."
kaodSep 8, 2006
for those of you arguing that DRM is easier to patch then a security flaw, the point is irrerelevant. whether it was a 2 line patch or a 5000 line patch, the point is that the DRM patch BROKE the patch cycle and was downloaded immediatley. score one for the "ms are sucking corporate c**k" opinion.
obkenobiSep 8, 2006
You're lucky you caught that in time, otherwise you would have to be hauled off to Spelling Jail, where you would have been tortured by spelling Nazis.I'm glad that MSDRM has been cracked again. Every time this happens, MS has to run around in circles and waste a ton of $$$ to fix it. Perhaps they will realize that resistance is futile. MS, you can't fight the will of the entire world. Especially that of your paying customers. You only serve big-business and fed interests so much, you have to serve your customers too!
Closed AccountSep 8, 2006
Why is this 'possibly inaccurate'? Are people from the digg community in denial??
forgetfulcaSep 8, 2006
zigamorph"Plus how do we know it wasn't just a one liner. I have found many times in my code just by changing one line of my code might fix a huge bug."Doesn't matter if it is a one-liner, most of the work involved in rolling out a software change is not in the fix, but in the distribution. There's qa testing to make sure that the fix doesn't break something else, the overhead involved in adding it to the list of patches available, the criteria to select target machines, etc. I would be very angry if MS is skimping on the quality assurance side of this just to make sure this restrictions managements stuff is being 'fixed'
forgetfulcaSep 8, 2006
Beware astroturf. getting this marked as accurate smells like situation-management to me.ie, informed people will decide (or not) that the story seems valid, uninformed people will be likely to be skeptical (and therefore more supportive of MS) .
tropican8Sep 12, 2006
Maybe because people are thinking that somewhere down the line Microsoft released something faster, or that a DRM vulnerability is not a security vulnerability. They seem to be forgetting that though its not a problem for an end-users, its still a serious flaw in Microsoft's DRM, something the record labels were not aware of when they signed an agreement with them. Bruce Schneier, the author of the article, as well as the Blowfish algorithm, seems like a pretty reliable source for info about security patches, but maybe that's just me. The title of the digg article is a tad misleading however, lots of exclamations with very little info. The story would have probably gotten more diggs had the submitter mentioned DRM in the title.