, 2003-01-13
Why I should have the right to kill a malicious process on your machine.
Expand all |
Post comment
Strikeback, Part Deux
2003-01-13
Chris Caydes (2 replies)
Chris Caydes (2 replies)
Strikeback, Part Deux
2003-01-13
Stealthbadger (2 replies)
Stealthbadger (2 replies)
The Self-Defense Argument is flawed... Strikeback, Part Deux
2003-01-14
Shawn Duffy (5 replies)
Shawn Duffy (5 replies)
Give me a break... Strikeback, Part Deux
2003-01-13
Shawn Duffy (7 replies)
Shawn Duffy (7 replies)
Give me a break... Strikeback, Part Deux
2003-01-14
Anonymous (5 replies)
Anonymous (5 replies)
Give me a break... Strikeback, Part Deux
2003-01-14
Shawn Duffy (3 replies)
Shawn Duffy (3 replies)
Isn't this like smacking the neighbor's kid for mouthing off?
2003-01-14
Anonymous (7 replies)
Anonymous (7 replies)
No, it's like shooting your neighbor's dog who ruthlessly attacking someone.
2003-01-15
P. Hofmeister (1 replies)
P. Hofmeister (1 replies)
Strikeback, Part Deux
2003-01-20
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
Strikeback, Part Deux
2003-01-20
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
Strikeback, Part Deux
2003-01-21
Anonymous (2 replies)
Anonymous (2 replies)

Like 'the boy who cried wolf', there are so many patches for so many different bits of software that your average user has had enough. Once = "good I will apply it", twice = "you could have fixed this in the last patch", thrice = "get stuffed I have already patched this rubbish twice".
The law of diminishing returns in operation - the more patches for a given piece of software the less chance the patch has of being applied.
[ reply ]
Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/columns/134/17776#17776