After the hot air what do the facts say.... | The Coffeehouse

Boomport
SG1: Deep Space Radar Telemetry is the job to have.

Windows XP, Vista, and Mac OS X vulnerability stats for 2007
	XP	Vista	XP + Vista	Mac OS X
Total extremely critical	3	1	4	0
Total highly critical	19	12	23	234
Total moderately critical	2	1	3	2
Total less critical	3	1	4	0
Total flaws	34	20	44	236
Average flaws per month	2.83	1.67	3.67	20.25

X Extremely critical
H Highly critical
M Moderately critical
L Less critical

http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=758

Dodo
I'm your creativity creator™ :)

Boomport wrote:
After the hot air what do the facts say....

Umm... they say, Vista is the most secure system? Or... maybe... they're fake?

Lloyd_Humph
If Blackberrys are addictive cellphones, Channel9 is the ultimate addictive website.

Dodo wrote:

Boomport wrote: After the hot air what do the facts say....
Umm... they say, Vista is the most secure system? Or... maybe... they're fake?

I don't think they're credible.

Why put XP + Vista together? just to rub it into Mac's faces?

Spoof'd

phreaks

34 + 20 = 44?

PaoloM
Hypermediocrity

Did you guys actually read the article? All your questions are answered there...

Lloyd_Humph
If Blackberrys are addictive cellphones, Channel9 is the ultimate addictive website.

phreaks wrote:
34 + 20 = 44?

haha I was wondering when somebody else would notice this [a]

Dodo
I'm your creativity creator™ :)

Lloyd_Humph wrote:

phreaks wrote: 34 + 20 = 44?

haha I was wondering when somebody else would notice this

Just to mention some components of Vista and XP are the same, and therefor might have had the same issue, maybe that's it?

evildictaitor
if( !succeed( try() ) ) { while(true) try(); }

Dodo wrote:

Lloyd_Humph wrote:

phreaks wrote: 34 + 20 = 44?

haha I was wondering when somebody else would notice this
Just to mention some components of Vista and XP are the same, and therefor might have had the same issue, maybe that's it?

If you'd read the article you'd find that was exactly it.

Edit: Bah! Three posts in as many seconds!

Bas
It finds lightbulbs.

Yes. It says so in the article. Duplicate issues aren't counted in Vista and XP's combined column, because that would be counting the same issue twice.

He combined Vista and XP because he couldn't find a list of issues for just Leopard.

PerfectPhase
"This is not war, this is pest control!" - Dalek to Cyberman

phreaks wrote:
34 + 20 = 44?

Must have used Excel Smiley

Dodo
I'm your creativity creator™ :)

evildictaitor wrote:
If you'd read the article you'd find that was exactly it.

Edit: Bah! Three posts in as many seconds!

I did.

Hahaha:

Rossj

While what he says is probably true, I am a little surprised that he put across the mac hack contest as a serious remote flaw when in fact that had to be granted rights after they couldn't break it remotely. Just sayin' ....

Any stats on how quickly they get fixed and how many of the XP serious bugs are older than 12 months and unpatched?

Xaero_Vincent
Sexy me

Secunia says Fedora 8 had 14 security holes with all of them patched.

I wonder how many of those holes could get exploited with all the security features in place.

Like on Windows, I keep on top of system updates, so there is very little surface area for attack.

CannotResolveSymbol
{insert caption here}

Boomport wrote:

Windows XP, Vista, and Mac OS X vulnerability stats for 2007

XP Vista XP + Vista Mac OS X

Total extremely critical 3 1 4 0

Total highly critical 19 12 23 234

Total moderately critical 2 1 3 2

Total less critical 3 1 4 0

Total flaws 34 20 44 236

Average flaws per month 2.83 1.67 3.67 20.25

I also find it interesting that 3+19+2+3=34 (should be 27) and 1+12+1+1=20 (should be 15). Also, I find it interesting that 4+23+3+4=44, because that should be 34.

Am I missing something here, or can this guy just not count?

Also, where'd the 234 vulnerabilities number come from? Secunia (which he quotes as his source for these figures) shows 26 security advisories issued in 2007 against Mac OSX...

phreaks

CannotResolveSymbol wrote:

Boomport wrote:

Windows XP, Vista, and Mac OS X vulnerability stats for 2007

XP Vista XP + Vista Mac OS X

Total extremely critical 3 1 4 0

Total highly critical 19 12 23 234

Total moderately critical 2 1 3 2

Total less critical 3 1 4 0

Total flaws 34 20 44 236

Average flaws per month 2.83 1.67 3.67 20.25

I also find it interesting that 3+19+2+3=34 (should be 27) and 1+12+1+1=20 (should be 15). Also, I find it interesting that 4+23+3+4=44, because that should be 34.

Am I missing something here, or can this guy just not count?

He's prolly the postman that charged me $123.00 for 3 books of stamps that should have been $24.00 this morning at the post office.

Zeo
Channel 9 :)

I still say that Windows Update makes the most difference for security. Regradless of the numbers.

IMHO, Vista is just as insecure as Windows XP if Windows Update isn't actively used on Vista or Windows XP.

IMHO, Windows XP is just as secure as Vista if Windows Update is used.

The numbers really don't matter.

Same rule applies for Mac, Mac is just as secure as Windows Vista if Mac OS X is fully patched.

Mac OS X is just as inscure as Windows Vista if Mac OS X is fully patched.

Do you niners actually care about the number of patches? :O

For me, the rule is to always stay as up-to-date as possible. [6]

Minh
WOOH! WOOH!

He should have employed "*" asterisks in his table. They're not only good for steroidal atheletes.

brian.shapiro
things go on as always

Zeo wrote:
I still say that Windows Update makes the most difference for security. Regradless of the numbers.

IMHO, Vista is just as insecure as Windows XP if Windows Update isn't actively used on Vista or Windows XP.

IMHO, Windows XP is just as secure as Vista if Windows Update is used.

The numbers really don't matter.

Same rule applies for Mac, Mac is just as secure as Windows Vista if Mac OS X is fully patched.

Mac OS X is just as inscure as Windows Vista if Mac OS X is fully patched.

Do you niners actually care about the number of patches?

For me, the rule is to always stay as up-to-date as possible.

Zeo,

I never thought that for most home users these vulnerabilities meant much anyway. I don't think most users experience them ; although its important for people who run servers. However, in the OS wars, security numbers become like quote-from-the-bible arguments in religion.

phreaks

brian.shapiro wrote:

Zeo wrote: I still say that Windows Update makes the most difference for security. Regradless of the numbers.

IMHO, Vista is just as insecure as Windows XP if Windows Update isn't actively used on Vista or Windows XP.

IMHO, Windows XP is just as secure as Vista if Windows Update is used.

The numbers really don't matter.

Same rule applies for Mac, Mac is just as secure as Windows Vista if Mac OS X is fully patched.

Mac OS X is just as inscure as Windows Vista if Mac OS X is fully patched.

Do you niners actually care about the number of patches?

For me, the rule is to always stay as up-to-date as possible.

Zeo,

I never thought that for most home users these vulnerabilities meant much anyway. I don't think most users experience them ; although its important for people who run servers. However, in the OS wars, security numbers become like quote-from-the-bible arguments in religion.

It's more important for home users to change the default password on their wireless router, especially if they have lots of open Samba shares, like a few of my neighbors... Expressionless