Microsoft is considering making Windows automatically download new updates and patches so its users are better prepared for outbreaks. But some of those files are huge, so what do you do if you're only on dial up? Some businesses don't even want to apply new patches because of the time it takes to test them. The problem is only made worse by yhe fact that there are literally thousands of security fixes every year. How much time would you need to spend per year to keep up with every security fix and patch? Here's what the experts estimate you'd need to do if you wanted to plug the 4,200 software vulnerabilities discovered in 2002.-----Set aside 20 minutes to read each security alert. this adds up to 175 days.-----Set aside one hour for each patch. Say you're affected by 10% of those alerts.....that's 52 days of work.-----All told, that's 227 days. Let's hope you're getting paid for this..
With so many vulnerabilities, 4200 in 2002, Why cant M$ test their products more vigorously?
With so much profit being made, why cant they employ the best of the best to test all new releases to a better standard? Is it only a matter of design it, produce it, quickly test it so they can sell it to make more profit? It would'nt solve all the security issues for good but surely
it would mean a better, less vulnerable product.
I mean i have heared exploits being found in some M$ only hours after the release. Do they actually check before they sell? Or does profit come before the customer?

Seems like very poor business practice to me, but hey i suppose if you have the monopoly you can do what you want, people will still buy our producy anyways. I can only imagine the smiles of arrogance on the faces in the CEO's meetings. Sort of seems understandable that some make an effort to expose this lack of responsibility and find exploits.

Anyways just my thoughts.. TidaLphasE23