这个问题提出来似乎有点儿愚蠢,那我换种方式提问,微软更新系统是为了谁的安全?是客户的安全吗?还是微软自己及其掌控者们的安全?世界上很多计算机安全攻防比赛很多都是这 些大公司赞助的,这些软件巨头们花如此多的钱就是为了让客户更安全?假设它们真的在乎用户的隐私和安全。那么我再请问，那微软为啥不移除系统内置的一些通用后门呢?CPU硬 件厂商为啥不移除内嵌的硬件后门呢?所以我头脑风暴一下，如果他们在乎的并不是客户的安全，而是它们自己的安全，它们能够唯一地安全地操控用户，那么它们就得保证这些预 设的后门没有被其他第三方发现，如何检查这些漏洞未被发现呢？举办各种安全比赛，提供奖金，吸引计算机高 手来挑战这个系统的漏洞，如果预设的漏洞或后门未被发现，那么这个后门对于控制者而言就是安全可靠的，如果被发现了，那么就堵上这个漏洞，并且人为开启一个新的后门， 之后反复操作这个过程，以实现独占系统的控制权。其实你从计算机黑客攻击的逻辑里面也能发现这些端倪。攻击方或者防守方都试图获得主机的控制权，并尽可能的取消对方的 权限。如此一来系统更新将持续进行，更新是为了填补被第三方发现的后门(取消对方控制权),开设新后门(夺回控制权)。另外提一点，微软系统迭代到现在，系统的实际功能有真正意义上的增加吗？很多功能还不如曾经旧版本的系统来的丰富。而真正让我如此想象的就是，微软的系统代码是非自由的，一个黑盒子。

漏洞和后门的区别，漏洞是无意识的后门，后门是有意识的漏洞

It seems a bit stupid to ask this question, so let me ask it in another way, for whose safety is Microsoft updating the system? Is it the safety of customers? Or the safety of Microsoft itself and its controllers? There are many computer security offensive and defensive competitions in the world They are all sponsored by these big companies. These software giants spend so much money just to make customers safer? Assuming they really care about customers' privacy and security.Then I ask again, why doesn’t Microsoft remove some universal backdoors which are built into the system? Why don’t CPU hardware manufacturers What about removing embedded hardware backdoors? So I brainstormed, if what they care about is not the safety of customers, but their own safety, and they can uniquely and safely manipulate customers, then they have to ensure that these preset backdoors are not discovered by other third parties, How to check that these backdoors are not found? Hold various security competitions, provide bonuses, and attract computer experts to challenge the system. If the preset backdoors are not discovered, then the backdoor is safe and reliable for the controller. If found, then the backdoors will be blocked and a new one will be created , and then repeatedly operate this process to achieve exclusive control of the system. In fact, you can also find these clues from the logic of computer hacking attacks. Both the attacking party and the defending party try to gain control of the host and cancel the other party's authority as much as possible. In this way, the system update will continue. The update is to fill the back door discovered by the third party (cancel the control of the other party) and open a new back door (to regain control)。Another point to mention is that the Microsoft system has been iterated to the present, has the actual function of the system increased in a real sense? Many functions are not as rich as the old version of the system.What really made me imagine this is that Microsoft's system code is non-free, a black box.

The difference between a vulnerability and a backdoor, a vulnerability is an unconscious backdoor and a backdoor is a conscious vulnerability