Can we end this thread? I think the original intent has come and gone. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373
On May 16, 2017 11:40 PM, <valdis.kletni...@vt.edu> wrote: > On Tue, 16 May 2017 20:55:37 -0600, "Keith Medcalf" said: > > > > On Tuesday, 16 May, 2017 18:13, Valdis Kletnieks <val...@vt.edu> wrote: > > > On Tue, 16 May 2017 16:41:36 -0600, "Keith Medcalf" said: > > > > >> Of course Microsoft knew, since they wrote in the backdoor in the > first > > >> place. That is why when informed by their employers that the backdoor > > >> was going to be made public, they could undo the changes they had > > >> introduced so rapidly. > > > > > Do you have any actual evidence or citations that in fact, this was an > > > intentionally inserted backdoor? > > > > Equal in quantity and quality to the evidence to the contrary. > > In that case, "Of course Microsoft didn't know" is equally probable. > > In fact, it's *more* probable, because if it was intentional, they'd > have to have ways in place to make sure that if some random programmer > managed to find it and report it, the bug wouldn't get fixed - and the > fact that there was a long-standing bug not fixed didn't get noticed by > the QA team and the rest. After all, once some TLA paid good money to > get that backdoor installed, the *last* thing you want happening is the > sentence, "What do you mean, you accidentally fixed it?" > > Plus, since "Microsoft didn't intentionally put the MS17-010 bug in as > a backdoor" is the null hypothesis, it requires zero evidence, and it's > your job to bring positive evidence for the non-null hypothesis. >
