Re: Windoze almost managed to 200x repeat 9/11

[Georgi Guninski <guninski () guninski com>]

clearly m$ are involved in this "incident".

i don't want amateurs commenting on m$.

i want an official reply from m$.

is there any official m$ reply on the "incident" (hahahaha) ?

-- 
where do you want bill gates to go today?


On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 02:08:49PM -0500, Todd Towles wrote:
> But you just said, there was a patch for the OS. It isn't like some one
> month ago patch...this is years and years and years. The company decided
> not to patch and to make the tech do a reboot every 30 days. He didn't
> do his job, it states it right there.
>
> Does Microsoft have crappy coding in Windows 95? Yep. But can they
> really be blamed for a company that decided to not patch?
>
> You are right about the old software, I think every large corporate has
> a Windows 95 box running something and one piece of software holds up
> the upgrade each year. If this system is that important, it shouldn't
> have been maintained so poorly.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: full-disclosure-admin () lists netsys com
> [mailto:full-disclosure-admin () lists netsys com] On Behalf Of Michal
> Zalewski
> Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 1:32 PM
> To: ASB
> Cc: full-disclosure () lists netsys com
> Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Windoze almost managed to 200x repeat
> 9/11
>
> On Fri, 24 Sep 2004, ASB wrote:
>
> > "The servers are timed to shut down after 49.7 days of use in order to
>
> > prevent a data overload, a union official told the LA Times."
> >
> > How you managed to read "OS failure" into this is rather astounding...
>
> The statement above, even though either cleverly disguised by the
> authorities, or mangled by the press, does ring a bell. It is not about
> applications eating up too much memory, hence requiring an occassional
> reboot, oh no.
>
> Windows 9x had a problem (fixed by Microsoft, by the way) that caused
> them to hang or crash after a jiffie counter in the kernel overflowed:
>
>   http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/q216/6/41.asp
>
> It would happen precisely after 49.7 days. Coincidence? Not very likely.
> It seems that the system was running on unpatched Windows 95 or 98, and
> rather than deploying a patch, they came up with a maintenance procedure
> requiring a scheduled reboot every 30 days.
>
> This is one hell of a ridiculous idea, and any attempt to blame a
> failure on a technician who failed to reboot the box is really pushing
> it.
>
> It is not uncommon for telecommunications, medical, flight control,
> banking and other mission-critical applications to run on terribly
> ancient software (and with a clause that requires them NOT to be
> updated, because the software is not certified against those patches).
>
> In the end, the OS and decision-makers that implemented the system and
> established ill-conceived workarounds should split the blame.
>
> /mz
>
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html