Misery loves company and I was not alone. For the umpteenth time in recent memory, companies around the globe were sent scrambling to catch up with an Internet worm that penetrated a security hole in Microsoft Windows. As that noted computer scientist Lawrence (Yogi) Berra surely remarked on a similar occasion, it was deja vu all over again.
Recall that more than a year ago, Microsoft made a big production of its determination to put this issue to bed. After getting repeatedly hammered for shipping versions of the Windows operating systems that were vulnerable to nasty hacks, the company let it be known that it had had enough. In January 2002, Bill Gates sent out a well-publicised company memo elevating security to the top of Microsoft's priority list.
The Redmond spin machine did a fabulous job of convincing the world that Microsoft was listening to its customers and working harder to provide better software security. The company proceeded to take the unprecedented step of shutting down software development for an entire month to let its people turn their full attention to the job at hand.
But such is the burden of being a monopolist whose software dominates the world. Companies here and abroad expect this stuff to be bulletproof, not a perennial work-in-progress. Since when should a company receive kudos for fixing something it should have taken care of years ago?
Microsoft has argued that this is hard stuff to master. No doubt. But is it much more complicated than airline engineering or bridge construction?
Funny thing about expectations. Travelers getting onto planes expect to debark in one piece. When people drive across a bridge, they do so confident about exiting safely on the other bank. If the plane or bridge dumps out halfway, I doubt surviving family members would be consoled by the promise that Version 1.1 will take care of the glitches.
People's lives don't usually ride on the security of operating system software, but a work force reduced to twiddling its thumbs waiting for the IS department to repair a worm's damage doesn't make for a pretty picture.
To its credit, Microsoft did issue a patch for this latest worm after it was uncovered by a group of Polish hackers and independent security consultants a couple of weeks ago. However, I'd do a hard stop right there.
If this were the exception rather than the rule, I would agree that the customer should be held responsible for making sure the latest fixes were downloaded onto a company's computers. But after two decades' worth of Swiss cheese software security, the world's biggest supplier of operating system software has run out of excuses. It took scientists less time to map the human genome.
Businesses, which rely on the assumption that Microsoft operating systems will stand up to attacks, might have assumed the statute of limitations on making lousy software ran out with the last of the Internet sock puppets. Users should be so lucky.
The analogy of Windows complexity to bridge engineering, or airline design is a crude comparison by any measure.
However, to entertain this perspective for one moment, I wonder if the author has considered how well bridges and airplanes stand up to hostile threats or attacks similar to the constant barrage of Worms and Viruses Windows has to weather?
I make no excuses for sloppy development, or poor security design, however Microsoft does have a point. They are fighting a battle against a very persistent foe. And they are playing on a field that is constantly changing, fed by the desire of consumers and organisations to continually innovate and improve.
The current crop of Being 747's represent 15 year old technology and some. They have almost no systems to make them defensible against hostile threats, as we have recently seen.
Windows has been improved and reengineered every few years, and most organisations have followed the upgrades, because each one offered valuable improvements over the last.
The complexity of these server environments and the millions of lines of software code required to operate them, way exceed the tactile world of bridge design, or the simple but multiple-redundant systems of an airplane.