3 ms·
Alternatively, and without your unsubstantiated knocking of Microsoft, perhaps they were needing to conduct serious regression testing. This isn't the "unit tes
by cmdkeen 12y ago
Alternatively, and without your unsubstantiated knocking of Microsoft, perhaps they were needing to conduct serious regression testing. This isn't the "unit tests pass, whack it into production" leagues after all.
Plus there's also the small matter of Christmas, and for many countries, significant developer unavailability falling into that period.
What's more likely, Microsoft can produce, test and deploy a patch in a few days, but chose not to until they had to. Or that they did get a patch ready and tested, but not in time for the patch Tuesday the previous month (so actually got it done in ~62 days) but it didn't warrant an out of band release?
- orf 12y agoThe run tests over every single supported version of Windows, on every platform and with every combination of patches installed. Or so I read in an article by a MS employee who deals with security reports, someone sent in a nonsense 'vulnerability' with some C# POC involving MessageBox.Show and returning from main. It was obviously not in any way a issue, but he still ran it across all versions and patch-levels of windows to be sure. It doesn't say how long this took but I expect it wasn't fast.
- doodpants 12y agoArguably, the fact that Google was going to reveal the vulnerability two days before the next patch Tuesday could have been considered sufficient reason to warrant an out of band realease.