| Interesting Idea... I thought of this a while ago but someone brought up a good point to counter my argument for it.
That person said a lot of people don't update software because of the issues it causes. So for example, for those that use Windows, a lot of people didn't update to SP2 because it was causing issues. Completely understandable, but if the ISP said "We want everyone running SP2", they'd cut you off after a certain amount of time from the internet and cause a bigger problem with you.
Plus, who is to decide what is unpatched/insecure software and what's not? I'm all for shutting off virus-laden computers off of a network; I think most of us would agree. In the example of SP2 again, some companies refused to use it because of the problems it caused. So would they be at fault and shut off the network because of an 'unpatched' system? It certainly wouldn't be fair to them if it cut down on productivity. Along those lines, some people had NO problems with SP2.
I guess it all depends on the severity of the update and what kind of update it is, but it's certainly not fool-proof, though it is an interesting idea. |
