__/ [ trentblack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ] on Tuesday 14 March 2006 08:02 \__
> rapskat wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 18:29:33 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> > As I said before (along with the arguments above, but in a different
>> > context), I am yet to hear about 'disasters' that incurred due to this
>> > flaw.
>> And this is where Linux differs the most from Windows. Under Windows,
>> many times the disclosure of a flaw and a real world exploit for same are
>> released at the same time, long before a fix is even available.
The recent WMF exploit(s) is an excellent example. It took Microsoft about a
fortnight to fix this (around January 5th), which left many people worried
throughout Christmas. This also forced anxious system administrators to
download and install unofficial patches (binaries that can never be
>> Under Linux, the flaw and the fix are usually released around the same
>> time, long before an exploit is ever developed for it.
>> So, which is better? I think the answer is obvious, which platform is
>> plagued by malware and which isn't?
Malware? I thought we were on the issue of access-type security...
> The point is: It never should have happened. Period.
> Don't try to weasal out of it. Makes you look like scum.
The folks (Gods) at Redmond deserve to sit on their Christmas thrones while
the rest of the work sits tight.
Roy S. Schestowitz | "This sig seemed like a good idea at the time..."
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
8:10am up 6 days 0:47, 7 users, load average: 0.70, 0.86, 0.78
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms