Re: Re: hello
| From: | Nathan Rixham | Date: | Thu, 08 Jan 2009 23:07:51 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: Re: hello | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 | Groups: | php.general php.general |
| Request: | Send a blank email to php-general+get-285766@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
Ashley Sheridan wrote:
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 22:38 +0000, Nathan Rixham wrote:Linux Kernel 2.6.x 161 Secunia advisories 286 Vulnerabilities Unpatched: 6% (10 of 161 Secunia advisories) http://secunia.com/advisories/product/2719/ Vista: 51 Secunia advisories 80 Vulnerabilities Unpatched: 12% (6 of 51 Secunia advisories) http://secunia.com/advisories/product/13223/Skip Evans wrote:That's like saying a nuke is as bad as a bullet; they can either kill or not kill. It's not a black and white issue. You really need to look at the potential vulnerabilities, and then compare patch frequencies. I think you'll find Windows is less secure. Ash www.ashleysheridan.co.ukNathan Rixham wrote:think about it for a minute; an OS can either be secure (0 vulnerabilities) or insecure (1 or more vulnerabilities); as all OS's have 1 or more vulnerabilities they are all equally insecure; because they are all insecure. the only way to change the balance is to make or find an OS with 0 vunerabilities; thus making it secure and no longer equal. my worlds boolean.yup.. all OS's are equally insecure; each OS is as insecure as the next; no one OS is more insecure than any otherWrong, and there is experimental data to prove it. Read the first URL I posted that documents the creation of Linux viruses and the experiments conducted to see how they propagate compared to Windows viruses.