Microsoft
MicrosoftMike_Pisano I know it's frustrating to work in that sort of situation, but that is exactly what LTS is. Backwards compatibility may break in order to fix security issues exactly like you are describing. At some point they have to look at all the permutations (there are a lot more than there were when windows 95 came out) and say they just don't have infinite resources to support every possible combination of their products for all time. I'm not a licensing expert, but generally LTS is the line in the sand (there are specific exceptions very rarely for when the provider determines it is NOT a good idea for their client to upgrade). It's the hard call on how far support will extend with security fixes, compatibility updates, etc. and is a good thing in order for technology to move forward and remain maintainable. If your organisation has had this communicated to them then just relax, it's not your fault they didn't pay to upgrade to a supported setup. The fix is for them to first get their operating systems on supported setups by their vendor. Then you can work with Microsoft to fix the issue and remind them that you fall under their LTS with regards to compatibility, instead of creating insecure hacks to accomodate your company's outdated infrastructure. It's the same deal, as you know, with all the businesses who were still using XP. It had to come to an end at some point. Windows Server 2003 is based off the windows XP code base originally, so is dreadfully insecure. Generally businesses these days can't afford to NOT secure all their systems and keep them up to date. This printer compatibility issue is merely one example of that.
