********************************************************************
Title: Microsoft Security Advisory Notification
Issued: February 28, 2006
********************************************************************

Security Advisories Updated or Released Today
==============================================

* Security Advisory (912945)
 – Title:    Non-Security Update for Internet Explorer

 – Web site:
http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=59550


Okay so read that……..


And this is a non security update that replaces a security update and will be replaced by a security update, but it’s not a security update.


Got that?  (yeah… I’m going huh?  as well)


Okay so you want to know what this is really all about?



In general it’s a process called “Rembrandts in the Attic” and I don’t think it’s always a good thing when some of the patents issued are very vague.


And yeah… in Shavlik or WSUS you don’t have to approve it.

 

One Response to Today’s security advisory that was released

  1. Alun Jones says:

    I am, as usual, of two minds about this.

    There is something worth rewarding in the guy who comes up with an obvious-in-hindsight idea that nobody has yet thought of.

    But there’s also a wealth of obvious-in-foresight ideas that get patented because they weren’t obvious to the patent examiner, because there was no recorded prior art (why record the obvious?), and in legal proceedings weren’t obvious to a judge (hey, it’s not his job to be a programming expert, right?)

    In part, I believe that a good governmental system has to allow for a certain level of abuse of the system – freeing the guilty on “technicalities” so that the innocent are not jailed; paying welfare cheats so as not to withhold payment from families that need it; and in this patent system, rewarding a lawyer whose only ability was to tell which way the wind was blowing, and who was going to invent what, so that we don’t fail to reward true innovators.

    The system needs to be re-examined to ensure that the abuse is less flagrant – that obvious ideas are not allowed a patent, and that they fail in the courts (ideally that they never get that far!)