[LINK] MS strikes again

Jan Whitaker jwhit at melbpc.org.au
Thu Jul 2 10:06:26 AEST 2009

At 09:40 AM 2/07/2009, Brenda Aynsley wrote:

>Sure we can say if MS got the architecture and implementation of their
>software right it couldn't happen, but we know that's not ultimately true.

Of course. I think in this situation there was some gap in either 
systemic thinking about using a system that can automatically update 
during a mission critical event [surgery] or someone messed with the 
set-up through a different act [reset a clock? update that reset 
defaults? who knows?] and didn't realise the downstream effects. I'm 
not sure the idea of needing updates is necessarily a problem, IF 
it's considered in the overall context.

I thought it was ironic that the system ended up infected after all 
because of trying to overcome the first problem by going to a 'null' 
state [no updates], instead of rescheduling the updates to a less 
[not absolute by the way] impacting time, say the middle of the night.

If we're going to rely on technology for medicine, we need to allow 
for the worst case situations and this was a doozy!

[PS: I think I'll post these at BLE as a risk example]

Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
jwhit at janwhitaker.com
blog: http://janwhitaker.com/jansblog/
business: http://www.janwhitaker.com

Our truest response to the irrationality of the world is to paint or 
sing or write, for only in such response do we find truth.
~Madeline L'Engle, writer

_ __________________ _

More information about the Link mailing list