<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Michael Gracie &#187; Kernel Patch Protection</title>
	<atom:link href="http://michaelgracie.com/tag/kernel-patch-protection/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://michaelgracie.com</link>
	<description>Clever Tagline Unavailable At Publication Time</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 01 Dec 2008 06:20:29 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6</generator>
	<language>en</language>
			<item>
		<title>Microsoft Kernel Patch Protection troubles security vendors</title>
		<link>http://michaelgracie.com/2006/07/30/microsoft-kernel-patch-protection-troubles-security-vendors/</link>
		<comments>http://michaelgracie.com/2006/07/30/microsoft-kernel-patch-protection-troubles-security-vendors/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Jul 2006 16:22:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Gracie</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Spamroll]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Kernel Patch Protection]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Microsoft]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.michaelgracie.com/microsoft-kernel-patch-protection-troubles-security-vendors/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Fact or FUD?  According to firewall vender Agnitum, Microsofts Kernel Patch Protection initiative may do more harm than good.
The issue at hand?  Third-party security vendors&#8217; ability to keep up with patches on Windows PCs, and at a stretch, the idea that hackers would benefit more than commercial software developers.
Is this an attempt by [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<!-- sphereit start --><p>Fact or FUD?  According to firewall vender Agnitum, Microsofts Kernel Patch Protection initiative may <a title="Agnitum analyzes latest Microsoft security initiatives" href="http://www.agnitum.com/news/kernel_patch_protection.php" target="">do more harm than good</a>.</p>
<p>The issue at hand?  Third-party security vendors&#8217; ability to keep up with patches on Windows PCs, and at a stretch, the idea that hackers would benefit more than commercial software developers.</p>
<p>Is this an attempt by Microsoft to force people to use their security products?  Who knows, but it&#8217;s an idea I can&#8217;t get my head around.  It sounds like something Microsoft might try, but why they would want to expose themselves to further regulatory scrutiny is beyond me.</p>
<p>Either way, it is likely not the best move, as other computing platforms <a href=" http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1995591,00.asp?kc=EWEWEMNL072406EPW3" target="">hit their stride</a>, but then again, neither notion bodes well for third-party vendors.  The fact that Microsoft security man Jesper Johansson <a title="Microsoft Security Guru Leaves for Amazon.com" href="http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1996130,00.asp?kc=EWRSS03119TX1K0000594" target="">walked out the door</a> only leads to further confusion.  What are the folks in Redmond up to?</p>
<!-- sphereit end -->]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://michaelgracie.com/2006/07/30/microsoft-kernel-patch-protection-troubles-security-vendors/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
