At no point did I ever say that the PSN was running on Microsoft owned servers. That was your baseless assumption. So I never contradicted anything. Your ignorance of back office systems does not mean that I don't know what I am talking about, only that you don't have a clue about what I was saying. Now that I have educated you, my statement that Sony shutdown the PSN to prevent further attacks on its backend running the Swiss cheese of security known as Microsoft is both accurate and true. Sony didn't have to shut down the PSN, but it was the right decision. And that allowed them to concentrate more on ripping out the Microsoft servers for the more secure non-Microsoft variety. (I.e. Red Hat Enterprise Linux running Oracle SQL)

Very first post to this thread: [quote]Someone hacked into the backend databases that Sony used for PSN. When Sony realized that happened they shut down the PSN. A hacker didn't take it down. Sony did that so they could rip out the unsecure Microsoft based servers for more secure non-Microsoft ones. [/quote] They did have to shut down there server before the hacker got more information or cause more damage. opening themselves to larger lawsuits.. And your ignorance is your own enemy...you have stepped on and over your own words several times, back tracking and not even aware of what you aid from post to post... I will give you Kudos for a nice Troll, kept it going much long than it should have....

Again you assumed I said Microsoft owned. I did not. At no point have I back tracked and have been very consistent in what I have said which is. PSN was using MS database servers and they replaced them with non-Ms database servers. also, they didn't have to shut down the PSN. The data was already taken and Sony did more for those who's data was exposed then any other company has done before or after. As I said, they did the right thing by shutting it down, but they didn't have to. same thing happened to Target earlier this year, they did not shut down their "Red Card" system while they enhanced their network security. They didn't pay for people to have free ID theft monitoring and protection like Sony did.

Then you really need to go back and read what ya wrote... Why would Sony, who is in direct competition with MS use anything from MS at all when they have options that they make themselves? Lets say they did have MS servers like you said. How would their servers be vulnerable and not the ones MS use for their services. Surely they would use their own products... Because it Sonys MS servers are vulnerable then So would the servers MS uses..because they would be the same...and MS was not affected... I'm done with you Troll. you have failed...

[quote]Then you really need to go back and read what ya wrote... Why would Sony, who is in direct competition with MS use anything from MS at all when they have options that they make themselves? Lets say they did have MS servers like you said. How would their servers be vulnerable and not the ones MS use for their services. Surely they would use their own products... Because it Sonys MS servers are vulnerable then So would the servers MS uses..because they would be the same...and MS was not affected... I'm done with you Troll. you have failed...[/quote] Sony is a large conglomerate corporation. They make more than the playstation and games. same thing with Microsoft, whose core business is selling and licensing software to corporations. Why would Sony use Microsoft products? Because they do for their other divisions. both companies are in this for the money and they only compete in the gaming side which is actually a small part of each company's bottom line. Other divisions of each company are actually partners in business. As for Microsoft using the same software they sell, NOPE. I used to work for Microsoft. They have their own builds and their own update packages. We were not allowed to use an off the shelf copy of MS products. Microsoft puts additional software/holes into the consumer versions that MS doesn't need internally. And for your last statement goes to show you are still assuming that I said Sony was running PSN on Microsoft owned servers inside microsoft's network. Which I never did. You call me a troll, but you are ignorant of how businesses implement information technology. you think servers are hardware, they are not. They are software. If MS didn't limit you, you could install Windows 8 on hardware with 64 cores and 30TB of memory. however you can install MS Servers on a laptop. You not knowing the simplest of concepts of information technology is causing your lack of understanding of what happened. As for why Sony was effected and Microsoft wasn't. Well. The attack targeted Sony owned and operated Microsoft servers running inside Sony's own network. The attacker wasn't attacking Microsoft's owned and operated servers running on Microsoft's network. That question assumes that an earthquake in California would cause the Empire State Building in New York City to fall.

See I told you he would rant when he failed... and he keeps on contradicting himself. So we broke even on our guesses..