3 ms·

>> "Google's Project Zero seeks to find bugs in popular software and then give the manufacturers responsible 90 days to fix the problem." Seems reasonable. >>

>> "Google's Project Zero seeks to find bugs in popular software and then give the manufacturers responsible 90 days to fix the problem." Seems reasonable. >> "On 11 January, Google publicised the flaw. Microsoft said it had requested that Google wait until it released a patch on 13 January." Dick move. Sorry, I can't think of any other way to describe it. They may have waited until the last minute (or maybe they really did have to rewrite a tonne of code) but that's no excuse or putting users at risk when you can wait two days. Seems more like a marketing tactic than a desire for faster security patches.

Drakim 12y ago
> Seems more like a marketing tactic What do you think is most likely, that Google engineers were smirking and rubbing their hands together in evil glee as they planned to throw eggs on Microsoft's face, or do you think the bug just went though the 90 day mechanics and got released normally, not getting special treatment? I seriously doubt it was "marketing tactic" but rather just a matter of not being flexible.
- k-mcgrady 12y ago
  With things like this you have to be flexible. All they asked for was an extra two days. To ignore that request you are doing something that could hurt users and hurt your competitor and it just seems slightly malicious. I can't see an excuse for it that makes it seem like a reasonable decision. Maybe it's not exactly a marketing tactic but it's malicious nonetheless.
  - fixermark 12y ago
    > With things like this you have to be flexible Not really. Google offered Microsoft the same thing they offer every vendor they find a vulnerability in: ninety days. If Microsoft couldn't fit a fix into an entire quarter's worth of development, that's on them. Let vendors set the schedule for security fixes, and they will prioritize their own schedules over keeping their house in order. There is too much evidence of this to believe otherwise.

Drakim 12y ago

> Seems more like a marketing tactic What do you think is most likely, that Google engineers were smirking and rubbing their hands together in evil glee as they planned to throw eggs on Microsoft's face, or do you think the bug just went though the 90 day mechanics and got released normally, not getting special treatment? I seriously doubt it was "marketing tactic" but rather just a matter of not being flexible.

k-mcgrady 12y ago
With things like this you have to be flexible. All they asked for was an extra two days. To ignore that request you are doing something that could hurt users and hurt your competitor and it just seems slightly malicious. I can't see an excuse for it that makes it seem like a reasonable decision. Maybe it's not exactly a marketing tactic but it's malicious nonetheless.
- fixermark 12y ago
  > With things like this you have to be flexible Not really. Google offered Microsoft the same thing they offer every vendor they find a vulnerability in: ninety days. If Microsoft couldn't fit a fix into an entire quarter's worth of development, that's on them. Let vendors set the schedule for security fixes, and they will prioritize their own schedules over keeping their house in order. There is too much evidence of this to believe otherwise.