It's not proof, but it definitely wouldn't go against Microsoft's checkered past in terms of poor business practices and offering OS's which for years were not built with security in mind:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/06/06 ... chers_say/
Damn motherfuckers, that's just plain evil. I mean, if new Windows versions keps backward compatibility or at least, you could customize Windows (without 1000 unknown third party add-ons) to make it look like what you are used to in the previous version, then I would understand it but those sons of bitches won't even allow you to keep the look and feel of the Windows from one version to the next one.
Filthy filthy bastards.
Filthy filthy bastards.
Microsoft has left Windows 7 exposed by only applying patches to its newest operating systems.
Researchers found the gaps after they scanned 900 Windows libraries and uncovered a variety of security functions that were updated in Windows 8 but not in 7. They said the shortcoming could lead to the discovery of zero day vulnerabilities.
The missing safe functions were part of Microsoft's dedicated libraries intsafe.h and strsafe.h that help developers combat various attacks.
Researcher Moti Joseph (@gamepe) - formerly of Websense - speculated Microsoft had not applied fixes to Win 7 to save money.
"Why is it that Microsoft inserted a safe function into Windows 8 [but not] Windows 7? The answer is money - Microsoft does not want to waste development time on older operating systems ... and they want people to move to higher operating systems," Joseph said in a presentation at the Troopers14 conference.
- diffray2.png (274.95 KiB) Viewed 3047 times