[bobwoodard]

but before you post "this study was bought and paid for by Microsoft", try providing some references ...

Who can say that until the paper is released? All you can go on is what they've published previously and they seem to have a very sympathetic attitutde towards MSFT.

As for the underlying issue of open vs closed source, most tech people realize that closed source is no more or less secure than open source. Either approach has its drawbacks.

[Bush2000]

Who can say that until the paper is released?

That's the point, bob: Until the paper is released, none of the ABM *nix trolls should be making accusations; otherwise, they're a bunch of slanderous, lying, sacks of sh*t.

All you can go on is what they've published previously and they seem to have a very sympathetic attitutde towards MSFT.

No, bob. Wrong. If you want to state your opinion, fine. But if you want to assert that opinion as fact, uh uh. No way. Nonsense. Evidence is based on fact. If you don't have evidence, don't bother unless you want to be labeled an idiot.

As for the underlying issue of open vs closed source, most tech people realize that closed source is no more or less secure than open source. Either approach has its drawbacks.

I agree with you. For example, it's easier, in a lot of ways, to start feeding really long strings to servers and web browsers than it is to slog through the code and find buffer overrun errors. So, in a purely mechanical, trial-and-error fashion, closed source will always be vulnerable to that sort of random attack. But open source permits very price attacks based upon a close reading of source code. As you say, each has its drawbacks. But asserting one as "superior" is a religious issue.