Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: All; TomServo; dayglored
In addition, this update, being a point update, collects all the security updates since the last point updates and includes them in the distribution... so some of these have already been issued. . . and are, in effect, being counted twice. I though I recognized some of these.

They are included in the point updates because some people skip the minor updates. This corrects that failing. Their machines get updated all at once. If you have been conscientious and done the incremental updates as they were released, then the older, all ready installed ones will not be installed with the update.

Note also, that the total number of "vulnerabilities" varies according to who is reporting the count. I've seen it reported between 131 to 134 to 141... depending on whether you included the OSX Server or not... and perhaps some other things. No one is bothering to check on the aging and check which are just new to this release. I know the Adobe Flash ones are, as are the Java updates. There are also a bunch of updates to HP network printer drivers with security fixes (in CUPS) as well... also apparently included in the count.

30 posted on 11/11/2010 11:39:58 PM PST by Swordmaker (This tag line is a Microsoft product "insult" free zone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]


To: Swordmaker; TomServo
Hi Sword.

Pardon me for a minute here, I need to go on a rant. :)

Ya know, I REALLY don't give a damn if Apple, or Microsoft, or Linus, issues patches for 2 or 20 or 200 vulnerabilities.

Software has bugs and flaws and mistakes. Most get trapped and fixed before release, but a great number remain, and only get found and fixed later. THIS IS LIFE IN SOFTWARE.

Finding (and fixing) more flaws can mean the software was buggier, OR IT CAN MEAN THE TESTING WAS MORE THOROUGH. It works both ways.

I REALLY, REALLY wish people would focus on the important things, rather than these crap competitive contests about how many seconds it takes to run a scripted exploit (see Charlie Miller), or how many vulnerabilities were found and fixed (like this article or similar ones about Windows).

Excuse me, but it's just bullshit. It does not in fact mean diddly-squat about the ACTUAL security of the system. What matters is whether there are exploits, and whether bad guys are using them. Almost all of those exploits now target the USER, not the OS itself, and are largely independent of which OS the user is on!

And the fact is, all three major systems (Windows, OS-X, Linux) have gotten to the point where the USER is by far the weakest link. Not the inherent properties of the OS.

In my opinion, Windows as of Win7 has joined the other two in robustness, and the inherent weaknesses of the OSes are now down in the noise. What matters is getting the users to wise up and stop allowing trojans and similar malware onto their systems.

The competitive Windows vs. OS-X vs. Linux battles for "which operating system is more secure" have become irrelevant. And -SO- tiresome.

[End Rant]

Thanks for listening. :)

32 posted on 11/11/2010 11:55:27 PM PST by dayglored (Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson