pooh, I agree with you on writing proper code, but the article said they will help large software vendors who did not code properly, but will not help the littleguy.
I compeltely agree with their descision too. And here is why: The larger companies that can not code properly have the funds to say "We don't know how it's insecure, fix it for us". The littler companies who can not code properly have no funds to say "We have no idea what's wrong. Can you fix it for us?" See what I mean? It isn't a "hahahahaha the little guy SUXORS!", it's the amount of time and money Microsoft is going to have to put into others to fix their code for them. If the little guy can cough up the money to have Microsoft rewrite their code properly, then so be it. Otherwise that littleguy simply needs to write better code.


Also, what about Microsofts own poor coding in Visual Studio and .Net Framework?
Their code is already memory secure and compatible with security regulations. Their VS and .NET already meets the memory management requirements, as do most of their products.

Like I stated earlier, hope this works out for the better.
I'm sure it will, even if a few small companies go down because of it. It simply shows the origonal lesson in Coding 101: Write proper, correct code the -first- time.