Slashdot Mirror

ANDROID's a Linux. How's it doing, now that it's no longer hiding behind "security-by-obscurity" (ie - lack of majority of users on a platform especially amongst 'novices' in said tech)?

Sorry but... truth is, it's being TORN UP on the security/malware/abuse front... badly.

(Too bad too, because they're nice "smartphones" to run nowadays with ANDROID, but I steer clear of them ALL, until "security maturation" happens).

* Funniest part's that I KNEW this was coming, despite all the "Linux = Secure" stuff I heard for YEARS (almost a decade now in fact) on /. here...

So - sure, you can secure a KERNEL all you like (Linux has an outstanding remote bug in it right now, thru the latest/greatest 2.6x mainstream kernel in fact -> http://secunia.com/advisories/47199/ too, so it's FAR from invulnerable)...

However, even in going on nearly decade old 2.6 mainstream core/kernel now? They STILL find issues in security in its core/kernel (this tells you how complex computer programming is, & especially on HUGE programming artifacts, like OS are)

Yes... even to this very day? Bugs in the kernel?? Yes!

Nothing's perfect!

PERFECTION? It's a ROAD, not a destination...

I think all OS exemplify that, yes, even Windows NT-based ones, MacOS X, & others as well.

APK

P.S.=> Anyhow/anyways - That's a pretty simple question to answer, go for it...

Because FINALLY?

Yes, a Linux has some SERIOUS marketshare but that's "backfiring" on those who literally believed the general "Linux=Secure" b.s. that flew around the web, especially around here I have found, bigtime.

NOw, it's a Linux (in ANDROID) that's amongst mostly "tech noobs" & it's going thru EXACTLY what Microsoft's Windows has, due to being the "OS of 'the masses'" & the majority of the masses?

They're NOT server admins/tech gurus (who are NOT as easy to take advantage of, but 'noobs' are) - they get "TARGETTED FOR TERMINATION" by the programmatic work of malware makers, yes, even on a Linux & ANDROID SHOWS US ALL THAT MUCH, easily... apk

I have yet to see a hacker that can infect a machine using an odf file .

How about PDF? SWF? XLS(x)? DOC(x)? Those are never the vector for code injection, right? And as for ODF... gotcha:

• How about this one
    Or this one

"Executable" ain't just EXE, COM, MSI and DLL anymore.

There are known, unpatched vulnerabilities in Windows XP. See Secunia's advisory database for examples.

There are known, unpatched vulnerabilities for every mainstream OS very often.

That very much depends upon how you define "safe enough". There are known, unpatched vulnerabilities in Windows XP. See Secunia's advisory database for examples. Furthermore, XP's defensive capabilities are outdated. I'm certainly not arguing that newer platforms are invulnerable, but they benefit from technologies and practices that have been created or honed over the last decade. At an even lower level than DEP, ASLR and the like, Windows 7 does a far better job of handling privilege separation, which goes a long way in mitigating risk from vulnerabilities. I personally prefer Linux, but I know better than to advocate switching to everyone. Windows Vista and Windows 7 still represent marked improvements over Windows XP, even now while the patches for XP are still coming.

They're still security problems fir ANDROID no matter what kind of "spin"'s put on the 84 security issues I posted on ANDROID, & they are serious (especially when they involve folks' money, personal info., & even privacy being stolen or compromised).

That's the point I am making on that note (when you stated that those things occurring aren't serious).

That, along with the fact that once a Linux starts to get used (near or as much as Windows is on PC desktops), it too, will be victimized & exploited (as ANDROID, a Linux variant, has been on smartphones).

APK

P.S.=>

"Except windows desktops still have remote code exploits that allow a malicious person to install persistent software simply by having you visit a webpage (or worse, simply sending a malicious packet to an IP address, there's a ton of active worms circulating on windows desktops), a new such hole that is being exploited is plugged every other month." - by mSparks43 (757109) on Sunday January 01, @07:18PM (#38559562) Homepage

There isn't a single one I can't "work-around" easily (& I mean EASILY) in the unpatched security vulnerabilities in Windows 7 here (2 remote unpatched, %environment% var expansion & DAO 3.6 lib):

https://secunia.com/advisories/product/27467/

or Windows Server 2008 here (2 remote unpatched, colorui.dll, & %environment% var expansion):

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/18255/

So, they're NO PROBLEM @ ALL here!

(E.G.-> On the affected libs - I don't use their functionality here anyhow, & have corrected any environment paths (easy to edit out % ones is why) & if needed, headless mode wouldn't need colorui.dll, & I could unregister colorui.dll & the DAO 3.6 libs (or use a higher version) & be done with those too, easily))...

... apk

They're still security problems fir ANDROID no matter what kind of "spin"'s put on the 84 security issues I posted on ANDROID, & they are serious (especially when they involve folks' money, personal info., & even privacy being stolen or compromised).

That's the point I am making on that note (when you stated that those things occurring aren't serious).

That, along with the fact that once a Linux starts to get used (near or as much as Windows is on PC desktops), it too, will be victimized & exploited (as ANDROID, a Linux variant, has been on smartphones).

APK

P.S.=>

"Except windows desktops still have remote code exploits that allow a malicious person to install persistent software simply by having you visit a webpage (or worse, simply sending a malicious packet to an IP address, there's a ton of active worms circulating on windows desktops), a new such hole that is being exploited is plugged every other month." - by mSparks43 (757109) on Sunday January 01, @07:18PM (#38559562) Homepage

There isn't a single one I can't "work-around" easily (& I mean EASILY) in the unpatched security vulnerabilities in Windows 7 here (2 remote unpatched, %environment% var expansion & DAO 3.6 lib):

https://secunia.com/advisories/product/27467/

or Windows Server 2008 here (2 remote unpatched, colorui.dll, & %environment% var expansion):

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/18255/

So, they're NO PROBLEM @ ALL here!

(E.G.-> On the affected libs - I don't use their functionality here anyhow, & have corrected any environment paths (easy to edit out % ones is why) & if needed, headless mode wouldn't need colorui.dll, & I could unregister colorui.dll & the DAO 3.6 libs (or use a higher version) & be done with those too, easily))...

... apk

http://secunia.com/advisories/43131

Your media player choice doesn't really matter if an exploit exists in the version you're running.

Thank you, but I'm just a humble retailer that got tired of being lied to. I mean if their OS was actually good then why has ASUS has given up on Linux? If it is so stable then why does Dell have to run their own repos even though we are talking a teeny tiny subset of hardware? If it is so secure then

how, do you explain these?

So you see somewhere on the way to be a good OS Linux quit being an OS and became a religion. Admittance of the myriad of problems is NOT allowed, anymore that you could question the Koran or Bible in the home of a fundie. Frankly Canonical could change the default picture to Goatse and we'd see apologists come out of the woodwork to explain that is actually a biting social commentary on our times.

Here are some facts: Fact 1- All the major OEMs frankly ignore Linux not because of some secret M$ Ninja conspiracy, but because its so damned unstable thanks to Torvalds treating the kernel as his own playground. this attitude which is expressed by the man himself right here mean a company either has to do like dell and pay a team to basically run their OWN distro, no small task, or deal with a broken mess when Torvalds goes 'Lol Goatse!" and breaks shit. this is why even Canonical admitted there is a FOUR TIMES higher return rate for Ubuntu netbooks which makes linux a money LOSER for any company foolish enough to try. Walmart, Asus, these companies don't just abandon a product willy nilly you know, they did it because of the reasons i listed.

The sad part? All the basic parts are there, a modern kernel, DEs that with some serious polish could be great, plenty of drivers, but the zealots and itch scratching devs make sure Linux goes exactly nowhere. the ONLY reason it has gotten anywhere on servers is MSFT's frankly ass raping prices on CALs. If MSFT dropped the price of WinServer to $100 and the price of CALs to a buck a pop Linux would dry up and blow away, anybody that was honest would admit this. As a Linux admin i know put it "if you give a Windows and Linux admin the same job that the Linux guy has done repeatedly then the Linux admin WILL win, but if its a completely new task? the windows admin will be home making a sandwich before the Linux admin is done Googling".

But instead of admitting that CLIs are for servers and GUIs for desktops you'll get 300 page treaties on how "CLI is leet!" and how much better the world would be if "They would only embrace the POWER of CLI" like its the god damned force. So instead all you get is flag waving and fangirls. notice how many above me rushed to say "And I'm not a fanboi"? Every time you read that the translation should be "I'm such a fangirl I squee like a tweener at a Beiber concert when i see a Bash prompt!"

Ultimately though their denial can't change reality and the simple fact is their precious awesome OS lower than JavaME , a shitty third rate cellphone OS. Why? If it is sooo good why is it so low? Because it ISN'T good, its a buggy, fiddly, unfriendly, unintuitive, CLI heavy fiddly bitch that is about as far from the level of polish from OSX and Win 7 as it is from here to Europa. If they weren't so busy drooling over bash prompts maybe they'd ask the most important question, which is "What are our competitors doing right that we are doing wrong?' but that would mean admitting 70s terminals are as out as Disco, and they'd rather choke on RMS's sandals that admit that little truth.

Thank you, but I'm just a humble retailer that got tired of being lied to. I mean if their OS was actually good then why has ASUS has given up on Linux? If it is so stable then why does Dell have to run their own repos even though we are talking a teeny tiny subset of hardware? If it is so secure then

how, do you explain these?

So you see somewhere on the way to be a good OS Linux quit being an OS and became a religion. Admittance of the myriad of problems is NOT allowed, anymore that you could question the Koran or Bible in the home of a fundie. Frankly Canonical could change the default picture to Goatse and we'd see apologists come out of the woodwork to explain that is actually a biting social commentary on our times.

Here are some facts: Fact 1- All the major OEMs frankly ignore Linux not because of some secret M$ Ninja conspiracy, but because its so damned unstable thanks to Torvalds treating the kernel as his own playground. this attitude which is expressed by the man himself right here mean a company either has to do like dell and pay a team to basically run their OWN distro, no small task, or deal with a broken mess when Torvalds goes 'Lol Goatse!" and breaks shit. this is why even Canonical admitted there is a FOUR TIMES higher return rate for Ubuntu netbooks which makes linux a money LOSER for any company foolish enough to try. Walmart, Asus, these companies don't just abandon a product willy nilly you know, they did it because of the reasons i listed.

The sad part? All the basic parts are there, a modern kernel, DEs that with some serious polish could be great, plenty of drivers, but the zealots and itch scratching devs make sure Linux goes exactly nowhere. the ONLY reason it has gotten anywhere on servers is MSFT's frankly ass raping prices on CALs. If MSFT dropped the price of WinServer to $100 and the price of CALs to a buck a pop Linux would dry up and blow away, anybody that was honest would admit this. As a Linux admin i know put it "if you give a Windows and Linux admin the same job that the Linux guy has done repeatedly then the Linux admin WILL win, but if its a completely new task? the windows admin will be home making a sandwich before the Linux admin is done Googling".

But instead of admitting that CLIs are for servers and GUIs for desktops you'll get 300 page treaties on how "CLI is leet!" and how much better the world would be if "They would only embrace the POWER of CLI" like its the god damned force. So instead all you get is flag waving and fangirls. notice how many above me rushed to say "And I'm not a fanboi"? Every time you read that the translation should be "I'm such a fangirl I squee like a tweener at a Beiber concert when i see a Bash prompt!"

Ultimately though their denial can't change reality and the simple fact is their precious awesome OS lower than JavaME , a shitty third rate cellphone OS. Why? If it is sooo good why is it so low? Because it ISN'T good, its a buggy, fiddly, unfriendly, unintuitive, CLI heavy fiddly bitch that is about as far from the level of polish from OSX and Win 7 as it is from here to Europa. If they weren't so busy drooling over bash prompts maybe they'd ask the most important question, which is "What are our competitors doing right that we are doing wrong?' but that would mean admitting 70s terminals are as out as Disco, and they'd rather choke on RMS's sandals that admit that little truth.

Thank you, but I'm just a humble retailer that got tired of being lied to. I mean if their OS was actually good then why has ASUS has given up on Linux? If it is so stable then why does Dell have to run their own repos even though we are talking a teeny tiny subset of hardware? If it is so secure then

how, do you explain these?

So you see somewhere on the way to be a good OS Linux quit being an OS and became a religion. Admittance of the myriad of problems is NOT allowed, anymore that you could question the Koran or Bible in the home of a fundie. Frankly Canonical could change the default picture to Goatse and we'd see apologists come out of the woodwork to explain that is actually a biting social commentary on our times.

Here are some facts: Fact 1- All the major OEMs frankly ignore Linux not because of some secret M$ Ninja conspiracy, but because its so damned unstable thanks to Torvalds treating the kernel as his own playground. this attitude which is expressed by the man himself right here mean a company either has to do like dell and pay a team to basically run their OWN distro, no small task, or deal with a broken mess when Torvalds goes 'Lol Goatse!" and breaks shit. this is why even Canonical admitted there is a FOUR TIMES higher return rate for Ubuntu netbooks which makes linux a money LOSER for any company foolish enough to try. Walmart, Asus, these companies don't just abandon a product willy nilly you know, they did it because of the reasons i listed.

The sad part? All the basic parts are there, a modern kernel, DEs that with some serious polish could be great, plenty of drivers, but the zealots and itch scratching devs make sure Linux goes exactly nowhere. the ONLY reason it has gotten anywhere on servers is MSFT's frankly ass raping prices on CALs. If MSFT dropped the price of WinServer to $100 and the price of CALs to a buck a pop Linux would dry up and blow away, anybody that was honest would admit this. As a Linux admin i know put it "if you give a Windows and Linux admin the same job that the Linux guy has done repeatedly then the Linux admin WILL win, but if its a completely new task? the windows admin will be home making a sandwich before the Linux admin is done Googling".

But instead of admitting that CLIs are for servers and GUIs for desktops you'll get 300 page treaties on how "CLI is leet!" and how much better the world would be if "They would only embrace the POWER of CLI" like its the god damned force. So instead all you get is flag waving and fangirls. notice how many above me rushed to say "And I'm not a fanboi"? Every time you read that the translation should be "I'm such a fangirl I squee like a tweener at a Beiber concert when i see a Bash prompt!"

Ultimately though their denial can't change reality and the simple fact is their precious awesome OS lower than JavaME , a shitty third rate cellphone OS. Why? If it is sooo good why is it so low? Because it ISN'T good, its a buggy, fiddly, unfriendly, unintuitive, CLI heavy fiddly bitch that is about as far from the level of polish from OSX and Win 7 as it is from here to Europa. If they weren't so busy drooling over bash prompts maybe they'd ask the most important question, which is "What are our competitors doing right that we are doing wrong?' but that would mean admitting 70s terminals are as out as Disco, and they'd rather choke on RMS's sandals that admit that little truth.

FOR SPEED OPERA ROCKS! (Especially over time):

B.) For SPEED & Opera leads again there, & CONSISTENTLY + for the LONGEST TIME, yes, even in javascript for the LONGEST time, until FF's new engines took its place, albeit, only TEMPORARILY!

(Until Opera 10.50 @ least, because that's gotten a decent "boost" in that area -> http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/12/22/1911216 (not that it matters though, speeding up javascript is like asking to get infected by malscripted sites &/or adbanners faster imo @ least - that of a "POV" of PC security, mostly)):

2.) SunSpider tests done here -> http://www.pcpro.co.uk/gallery/features/356350/on-test-the-hidden-seven-browsers-in-the-windows-ballot/145087 WHERE OPERA REGAINS ITS JAVASCRIPT PROCESSING SPEED LEAD OVER FF YET AGAIN!

OLDER DATA (on performance alone):

3.) And this one too last year also -> http://crave.cnet.co.uk/software/0,39029471,49302491,00.htm

4.) AND IT HAS BEEN "BLOWING AWAY" FIREFOX IN HTML PARSING/PROCESSING SPEEDS AS WELL, & FOR YEARS NOW, per this test years ago -> http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html#win

5.) Same here -> http://nontroppo.org/timer/kestrel_tests/

6.) Yet again/once more? Same story -> http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/08/08/1750241/Opera-Dominates-CNET-Survey-of-Underdog-Web-Browsers

(Opera "rocked the planet" in those cases... bigtime (& ESPECIALLY ON THE MOST USED PLATFORM THERE IS, BAR-NONE, FOR PC-COMPUTING: Windows!))

====

ALSO, FOR SECURITY? YES - OPERA ROCKS (as far as unpatched security vulnerabilities):

---

Vulnerability Report: Opera 11.x (12/15/2011):

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/33328/

Unpatched 14% (1 of 7 Secunia advisories)

* Mind you, that over time? From all versions UP TO this current one just released today?? THIS IS USUALLY ZERO% & ZERO UNPATCHED!

---

Vulnerability Report: Microsoft Internet Explorer 9.x (12/15/2011):

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/34591/

Unpatched 17% (1 of 6 Secunia advisories)

---

Vulnerability Report: Google Chrome 15.x (12/15/2011):

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/38537/

Unpatched 25% (1 of 4 Secunia advisories)

---

Vulnerability Report: Mozilla Firefox 8.x (12/15/2011):

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/38734/

Unpatched 100% (1 of 1 Secunia advisories)

---

A.) For SECURITY, OPERA ROCKS & HAS OVER TIME BIG TIME, usually @ ZERO unpatched security vulnerabilities AND zero unpatched sec. vulns counts period!

(& Opera leads there for the LONGEST TIME, yes, even in least security vulnerabilities found over time, typically of the "big 3" webbrowsers):

1.) iPhone, IE, Firefox, Safari get stomped at hacker contest -> (No Opera noted as "hosed" though, lol) http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/25/pwn2own_2010_day_one/

B.) AND, WHAT DOES A "HACKER/CRACKER"-SECURITY RESEARCHER TYPE CURRENTLY SAY, ABOUT OPERA (per Opera's showing in #1 above)?

OK:

----

FOR SPEED OPERA ROCKS! (Especially over time):

B.) For SPEED & Opera leads again there, & CONSISTENTLY + for the LONGEST TIME, yes, even in javascript for the LONGEST time, until FF's new engines took its place, albeit, only TEMPORARILY!

(Until Opera 10.50 @ least, because that's gotten a decent "boost" in that area -> http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/12/22/1911216 (not that it matters though, speeding up javascript is like asking to get infected by malscripted sites &/or adbanners faster imo @ least - that of a "POV" of PC security, mostly)):

2.) SunSpider tests done here -> http://www.pcpro.co.uk/gallery/features/356350/on-test-the-hidden-seven-browsers-in-the-windows-ballot/145087 WHERE OPERA REGAINS ITS JAVASCRIPT PROCESSING SPEED LEAD OVER FF YET AGAIN!

OLDER DATA (on performance alone):

3.) And this one too last year also -> http://crave.cnet.co.uk/software/0,39029471,49302491,00.htm

4.) AND IT HAS BEEN "BLOWING AWAY" FIREFOX IN HTML PARSING/PROCESSING SPEEDS AS WELL, & FOR YEARS NOW, per this test years ago -> http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html#win

5.) Same here -> http://nontroppo.org/timer/kestrel_tests/

6.) Yet again/once more? Same story -> http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/08/08/1750241/Opera-Dominates-CNET-Survey-of-Underdog-Web-Browsers

(Opera "rocked the planet" in those cases... bigtime (& ESPECIALLY ON THE MOST USED PLATFORM THERE IS, BAR-NONE, FOR PC-COMPUTING: Windows!))

====

ALSO, FOR SECURITY? YES - OPERA ROCKS (as far as unpatched security vulnerabilities):

---

Vulnerability Report: Opera 11.x (12/15/2011):

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/33328/

Unpatched 14% (1 of 7 Secunia advisories)

* Mind you, that over time? From all versions UP TO this current one just released today?? THIS IS USUALLY ZERO% & ZERO UNPATCHED!

---

Vulnerability Report: Microsoft Internet Explorer 9.x (12/15/2011):

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/34591/

Unpatched 17% (1 of 6 Secunia advisories)

---

Vulnerability Report: Google Chrome 15.x (12/15/2011):

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/38537/

Unpatched 25% (1 of 4 Secunia advisories)

---

Vulnerability Report: Mozilla Firefox 8.x (12/15/2011):

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/38734/

Unpatched 100% (1 of 1 Secunia advisories)

---

A.) For SECURITY, OPERA ROCKS & HAS OVER TIME BIG TIME, usually @ ZERO unpatched security vulnerabilities AND zero unpatched sec. vulns counts period!

(& Opera leads there for the LONGEST TIME, yes, even in least security vulnerabilities found over time, typically of the "big 3" webbrowsers):

1.) iPhone, IE, Firefox, Safari get stomped at hacker contest -> (No Opera noted as "hosed" though, lol) http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/25/pwn2own_2010_day_one/

B.) AND, WHAT DOES A "HACKER/CRACKER"-SECURITY RESEARCHER TYPE CURRENTLY SAY, ABOUT OPERA (per Opera's showing in #1 above)?

OK:

----

FOR SPEED OPERA ROCKS! (Especially over time):

B.) For SPEED & Opera leads again there, & CONSISTENTLY + for the LONGEST TIME, yes, even in javascript for the LONGEST time, until FF's new engines took its place, albeit, only TEMPORARILY!

(Until Opera 10.50 @ least, because that's gotten a decent "boost" in that area -> http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/12/22/1911216 (not that it matters though, speeding up javascript is like asking to get infected by malscripted sites &/or adbanners faster imo @ least - that of a "POV" of PC security, mostly)):

2.) SunSpider tests done here -> http://www.pcpro.co.uk/gallery/features/356350/on-test-the-hidden-seven-browsers-in-the-windows-ballot/145087 WHERE OPERA REGAINS ITS JAVASCRIPT PROCESSING SPEED LEAD OVER FF YET AGAIN!

OLDER DATA (on performance alone):

3.) And this one too last year also -> http://crave.cnet.co.uk/software/0,39029471,49302491,00.htm

4.) AND IT HAS BEEN "BLOWING AWAY" FIREFOX IN HTML PARSING/PROCESSING SPEEDS AS WELL, & FOR YEARS NOW, per this test years ago -> http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html#win

5.) Same here -> http://nontroppo.org/timer/kestrel_tests/

6.) Yet again/once more? Same story -> http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/08/08/1750241/Opera-Dominates-CNET-Survey-of-Underdog-Web-Browsers

(Opera "rocked the planet" in those cases... bigtime (& ESPECIALLY ON THE MOST USED PLATFORM THERE IS, BAR-NONE, FOR PC-COMPUTING: Windows!))

====

ALSO, FOR SECURITY? YES - OPERA ROCKS (as far as unpatched security vulnerabilities):

---

Vulnerability Report: Opera 11.x (12/15/2011):

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/33328/

Unpatched 14% (1 of 7 Secunia advisories)

* Mind you, that over time? From all versions UP TO this current one just released today?? THIS IS USUALLY ZERO% & ZERO UNPATCHED!

---

Vulnerability Report: Microsoft Internet Explorer 9.x (12/15/2011):

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/34591/

Unpatched 17% (1 of 6 Secunia advisories)

---

Vulnerability Report: Google Chrome 15.x (12/15/2011):

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/38537/

Unpatched 25% (1 of 4 Secunia advisories)

---

Vulnerability Report: Mozilla Firefox 8.x (12/15/2011):

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/38734/

Unpatched 100% (1 of 1 Secunia advisories)

---

A.) For SECURITY, OPERA ROCKS & HAS OVER TIME BIG TIME, usually @ ZERO unpatched security vulnerabilities AND zero unpatched sec. vulns counts period!

(& Opera leads there for the LONGEST TIME, yes, even in least security vulnerabilities found over time, typically of the "big 3" webbrowsers):

1.) iPhone, IE, Firefox, Safari get stomped at hacker contest -> (No Opera noted as "hosed" though, lol) http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/25/pwn2own_2010_day_one/

B.) AND, WHAT DOES A "HACKER/CRACKER"-SECURITY RESEARCHER TYPE CURRENTLY SAY, ABOUT OPERA (per Opera's showing in #1 above)?

OK:

----

FOR SPEED OPERA ROCKS! (Especially over time):

B.) For SPEED & Opera leads again there, & CONSISTENTLY + for the LONGEST TIME, yes, even in javascript for the LONGEST time, until FF's new engines took its place, albeit, only TEMPORARILY!

(Until Opera 10.50 @ least, because that's gotten a decent "boost" in that area -> http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/12/22/1911216 (not that it matters though, speeding up javascript is like asking to get infected by malscripted sites &/or adbanners faster imo @ least - that of a "POV" of PC security, mostly)):

2.) SunSpider tests done here -> http://www.pcpro.co.uk/gallery/features/356350/on-test-the-hidden-seven-browsers-in-the-windows-ballot/145087 WHERE OPERA REGAINS ITS JAVASCRIPT PROCESSING SPEED LEAD OVER FF YET AGAIN!

OLDER DATA (on performance alone):

3.) And this one too last year also -> http://crave.cnet.co.uk/software/0,39029471,49302491,00.htm

4.) AND IT HAS BEEN "BLOWING AWAY" FIREFOX IN HTML PARSING/PROCESSING SPEEDS AS WELL, & FOR YEARS NOW, per this test years ago -> http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html#win

5.) Same here -> http://nontroppo.org/timer/kestrel_tests/

6.) Yet again/once more? Same story -> http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/08/08/1750241/Opera-Dominates-CNET-Survey-of-Underdog-Web-Browsers

(Opera "rocked the planet" in those cases... bigtime (& ESPECIALLY ON THE MOST USED PLATFORM THERE IS, BAR-NONE, FOR PC-COMPUTING: Windows!))

====

ALSO, FOR SECURITY? YES - OPERA ROCKS (as far as unpatched security vulnerabilities):

---

Vulnerability Report: Opera 11.x (12/15/2011):

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/33328/

Unpatched 14% (1 of 7 Secunia advisories)

* Mind you, that over time? From all versions UP TO this current one just released today?? THIS IS USUALLY ZERO% & ZERO UNPATCHED!

---

Vulnerability Report: Microsoft Internet Explorer 9.x (12/15/2011):

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/34591/

Unpatched 17% (1 of 6 Secunia advisories)

---

Vulnerability Report: Google Chrome 15.x (12/15/2011):

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/38537/

Unpatched 25% (1 of 4 Secunia advisories)

---

Vulnerability Report: Mozilla Firefox 8.x (12/15/2011):

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/38734/

Unpatched 100% (1 of 1 Secunia advisories)

---

A.) For SECURITY, OPERA ROCKS & HAS OVER TIME BIG TIME, usually @ ZERO unpatched security vulnerabilities AND zero unpatched sec. vulns counts period!

(& Opera leads there for the LONGEST TIME, yes, even in least security vulnerabilities found over time, typically of the "big 3" webbrowsers):

1.) iPhone, IE, Firefox, Safari get stomped at hacker contest -> (No Opera noted as "hosed" though, lol) http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/25/pwn2own_2010_day_one/

B.) AND, WHAT DOES A "HACKER/CRACKER"-SECURITY RESEARCHER TYPE CURRENTLY SAY, ABOUT OPERA (per Opera's showing in #1 above)?

OK:

----

THUS, it wouldn't matter WHERE THE ERRORS COME FROM, they cause hassles for END USERS... period!

The subject of the discussion was whether or not sandboxes work. Programming errors in code running in the sandbox are irrelevant to that topic; what matters is whether or not malicious software can break out of the sandbox.

This is as "real" as it gets (though I prefer posting real-world practice findings as I did above & in my initial post you replied to) -> http://secunia.com/advisories/product/12878/ [secunia.com]

Wow a total of four vulnerabilities discovered in 2011. Thank you for making my point.

Get ready, here they come! Kinda makes that koolaid just a little bitter now, don't it? I believe in using the best tool for the job, but to say Linux is secure or better than any other complex OS is frankly bullshit. Hell I was talking to a 15 year Linux admin on one of the other sites that had gotten so sick of Linux fuckups they were going to BSD and if THAT didn't "just work" they were gonna wash their hands of FLOSS on the desktop and just go Mac.

BTW if you'd like a little more food for thought, what OS was 3 of the 4 CAs running that were compromised? take a look and see. Maybe they just had bad configs? Surely someone with knowledge would be safe right? Guess again and its not a fluke by any means.

As for an application? How about the fucking OS? If that shits itself and dies, like what happened here (read the final straw by a 15 year plus Linux admin who just dumped your OS) I'd call THAT a problem, wouldn't you?

But it doesn't matter what I say, it doesn't matter if I wallpaper this page with links backing everything i say up 100%, because you are a FOSSie. A FOSSie refuses to believe reality and instead screams "Nigger faggot jew!" or "FUD shill astroturfer!" to all that do not bow before the bullshit effigy made in the likeness of RMS. I'm sure now instead of answering all this evidence and citations you'll just call me some names, like a frightened child who just got told Santa wasn't real. Sorry friend but i happen to live in the real world and out here? Linux works about as reliably as Windows 95.

Get ready, here they come! Kinda makes that koolaid just a little bitter now, don't it? I believe in using the best tool for the job, but to say Linux is secure or better than any other complex OS is frankly bullshit. Hell I was talking to a 15 year Linux admin on one of the other sites that had gotten so sick of Linux fuckups they were going to BSD and if THAT didn't "just work" they were gonna wash their hands of FLOSS on the desktop and just go Mac.

BTW if you'd like a little more food for thought, what OS was 3 of the 4 CAs running that were compromised? take a look and see. Maybe they just had bad configs? Surely someone with knowledge would be safe right? Guess again and its not a fluke by any means.

As for an application? How about the fucking OS? If that shits itself and dies, like what happened here (read the final straw by a 15 year plus Linux admin who just dumped your OS) I'd call THAT a problem, wouldn't you?

But it doesn't matter what I say, it doesn't matter if I wallpaper this page with links backing everything i say up 100%, because you are a FOSSie. A FOSSie refuses to believe reality and instead screams "Nigger faggot jew!" or "FUD shill astroturfer!" to all that do not bow before the bullshit effigy made in the likeness of RMS. I'm sure now instead of answering all this evidence and citations you'll just call me some names, like a frightened child who just got told Santa wasn't real. Sorry friend but i happen to live in the real world and out here? Linux works about as reliably as Windows 95.

Get ready, here they come! Kinda makes that koolaid just a little bitter now, don't it? I believe in using the best tool for the job, but to say Linux is secure or better than any other complex OS is frankly bullshit. Hell I was talking to a 15 year Linux admin on one of the other sites that had gotten so sick of Linux fuckups they were going to BSD and if THAT didn't "just work" they were gonna wash their hands of FLOSS on the desktop and just go Mac.

BTW if you'd like a little more food for thought, what OS was 3 of the 4 CAs running that were compromised? take a look and see. Maybe they just had bad configs? Surely someone with knowledge would be safe right? Guess again and its not a fluke by any means.

As for an application? How about the fucking OS? If that shits itself and dies, like what happened here (read the final straw by a 15 year plus Linux admin who just dumped your OS) I'd call THAT a problem, wouldn't you?

But it doesn't matter what I say, it doesn't matter if I wallpaper this page with links backing everything i say up 100%, because you are a FOSSie. A FOSSie refuses to believe reality and instead screams "Nigger faggot jew!" or "FUD shill astroturfer!" to all that do not bow before the bullshit effigy made in the likeness of RMS. I'm sure now instead of answering all this evidence and citations you'll just call me some names, like a frightened child who just got told Santa wasn't real. Sorry friend but i happen to live in the real world and out here? Linux works about as reliably as Windows 95.

"Umm, yeah, like there's no bias there. Find me a reputable source for those statements." - by swillden (191260) on Saturday December 10, @10:09AM (#38325754) Homepage

Security study of FireFox -> http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/12/10/1349212/google-funded-study-knocks-firefox-security except that MS' study uses a program to perform its checks... rather than just make statements.

PLUS: The test was done by a PROGRAM testing for flaws, & whatever results it put out, should be laid to blame as the "biased" tool, not Microsoft (who are pretty reputable after all, being one of the largest software oem's in existence).

---

"Complete red herring. That article isn't about security flaws in the JVM, it's about programmer errors in apps written in Java. It's also a really, really poorly done study." - by swillden (191260) on Saturday December 10, @10:09AM (#38325754) Homepage

You missed this portion of that article regarding the JVM itself, here's the "pertinent quote":

---

"The JRE contained some of the most common exploits, he said. Vulnerabilities in the Java Virtual Machine (JVM) and Java Development Kit (JDK) for Java SE were also popular targets. Between a third to a half of all exploits detected by Microsoft's anti-malware were Java exploits."

---

Also - Does it MATTER where the flaws come from?

Flaws are flaws, be they in SUN Java's VM, or in the code written that is interepreted by the Virtual Machine...

THUS, it wouldn't matter WHERE THE ERRORS COME FROM, they cause hassles for END USERS... period!

---

"Nope. Try again. But see if you can find something *real* this time (you can't)." - by swillden (191260) on Saturday December 10, @10:09AM (#38325754) Homepage

This is as "real" as it gets (though I prefer posting real-world practice findings as I did above & in my initial post you replied to) -> http://secunia.com/advisories/product/12878/ & you can check NISTS' National Vulnerabilities Database for the same type of information if you wish...

APK

P.S.=> I posted the last link, since it seems you're more of a "statistics man" apparently, & because you wish "unbiased sources"...

So, the last link above is exactly that (SECUNIA's db for unpatched security vulnerabilities & specifically for JAVA)...

... apk

So in other words you answer is "Linux is magical and never gets bugs so don't update it" correct? care to

explain these my friend? protip: NO OS is secure without being patched NONE.I'd also point out the KDELook bug of year before last, oh and here is a nice little how to for writing Linux bugs.

But thank you for posting, yours is a PERFECT example of why linux on the desktop is as dead as disco. When pointed out the myriad of problems the community simply sticks their fingers in their ears and goes "La la la, CLI is leet! You don't know, you are noob, you are not leet! You must be a M$ Ninja dirty poo poo head!". would you like me to link to the OEMs that have abandoned Linux, including Asus which started the whole netbook craze? just ask and its yours, maybe you can explain how the ENTIRE PLANET is wrong and you're right.

So in other words you answer is "Linux is magical and never gets bugs so don't update it" correct? care to

explain these my friend? protip: NO OS is secure without being patched NONE.I'd also point out the KDELook bug of year before last, oh and here is a nice little how to for writing Linux bugs.

But thank you for posting, yours is a PERFECT example of why linux on the desktop is as dead as disco. When pointed out the myriad of problems the community simply sticks their fingers in their ears and goes "La la la, CLI is leet! You don't know, you are noob, you are not leet! You must be a M$ Ninja dirty poo poo head!". would you like me to link to the OEMs that have abandoned Linux, including Asus which started the whole netbook craze? just ask and its yours, maybe you can explain how the ENTIRE PLANET is wrong and you're right.

So in other words you answer is "Linux is magical and never gets bugs so don't update it" correct? care to

explain these my friend? protip: NO OS is secure without being patched NONE.I'd also point out the KDELook bug of year before last, oh and here is a nice little how to for writing Linux bugs.

But thank you for posting, yours is a PERFECT example of why linux on the desktop is as dead as disco. When pointed out the myriad of problems the community simply sticks their fingers in their ears and goes "La la la, CLI is leet! You don't know, you are noob, you are not leet! You must be a M$ Ninja dirty poo poo head!". would you like me to link to the OEMs that have abandoned Linux, including Asus which started the whole netbook craze? just ask and its yours, maybe you can explain how the ENTIRE PLANET is wrong and you're right.

Rather than rely on a biased study by Google that damns its competitors, look at what Secunia -- an independent source -- says.

At http://secunia.com/advisories/product/38734/?task=statistics_2011, we see that Firefox 8 has 1 minor vulnerability (unpatched).

At http://secunia.com/advisories/product/38537/?task=statistics_2011, we see that Chrome 15 has 3 vulnerabilities, with 2 considered "highly critical". Those two have patches; the minor vulnerability is not yet patched.

It seems that security for Chrome and Firefox are currently equal but not perfect.

Rather than rely on a biased study by Google that damns its competitors, look at what Secunia -- an independent source -- says.

At http://secunia.com/advisories/product/38734/?task=statistics_2011, we see that Firefox 8 has 1 minor vulnerability (unpatched).

At http://secunia.com/advisories/product/38537/?task=statistics_2011, we see that Chrome 15 has 3 vulnerabilities, with 2 considered "highly critical". Those two have patches; the minor vulnerability is not yet patched.

It seems that security for Chrome and Firefox are currently equal but not perfect.

FOR SECURITY OPERA ROCKS (as far as unpatched security vulnerabilities):

---

Vulnerability Report: Opera 11.x (12/06/2011):

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/33328/

Unpatched 14% (1 of 7 Secunia advisories)

* Mind you, that over time? From all versions UP TO this current one just released today?? THIS IS USUALLY ZERO% & ZERO UNPATCHED!

---

Vulnerability Report: Microsoft Internet Explorer 9.x (12/06/2011):

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/34591/

Unpatched 20% (1 of 5 Secunia advisories)

---

Vulnerability Report: Google Chrome 15.x (12/06/2011):

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/38537/

Unpatched 33% (1 of 3 Secunia advisories)

---

Vulnerability Report: Mozilla Firefox 8.x (12/06/2011):

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/38734/

Unpatched 100% (1 of 1 Secunia advisories)

---

A.) For SECURITY, OPERA ROCKS & HAS OVER TIME BIG TIME, usually @ ZERO unpatched security vulnerabilities AND zero unpatched sec. vulns counts period!

(& Opera leads there for the LONGEST TIME, yes, even in least security vulnerabilities found over time, typically of the "big 3" webbrowsers):

1.) iPhone, IE, Firefox, Safari get stomped at hacker contest -> (No Opera noted as "hosed" though, lol) http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/25/pwn2own_2010_day_one/

AND, WHAT DOES A "HACKER/CRACKER"-SECURITY RESEARCHER TYPE CURRENTLY SAY, ABOUT OPERA (per Opera's showing in #1 above)?

OK:

----

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/25/pwn2own_2010_day_one/

"The problem Microsoft has is they have a big market share, said Vreugdenhil, the hacker who attacked IE. "I use Opera, but that's basically because it has a tiny market share and as far as I know, nobody is really interested in creating a drive-by download for opera. The web at the moment is pretty scary, actually."

(Hence, again showing that even the "hacker/cracker" types use Opera, because it's safer to do so, & from the mindset of those DOING THE HACKING/CRACKING no less!)

----

FOR SPEED OPERA ROCKS ALSO (Especially over time):

B.) For SPEED & Opera leads again there, & CONSISTENTLY + for the LONGEST TIME, yes, even in javascript for the LONGEST time, until FF's new engines took its place TEMPORARILY!

(Until Opera 10.50 @ least, because that's gotten a decent "boost" in that area -> http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/12/22/1911216 (not that it matters though, speeding up javascript is like asking to get infected by malscripted sites &/or adbanners faster imo @ least - that of a "POV" of PC security, mostly)):

2.) SunSpider tests done here recently -> http://www.pcpro.co.uk/gallery/features/356350/on-test-the-hidden-seven-browsers-in-the-windows-ballot/145087 WHERE OPERA REGAINS ITS JAVASCRIPT PROCESSING SPEED LEAD OVER FF YET AGAIN!

OLDER DATA (on performance alone):

3.) And this one too last year also -> http://crave.cnet.co.uk/software/0,39029471,49302491,00.htm

4.) AND IT HAS BEEN "BLOWING AWAY" FIREFOX IN HTML PARSING/PROCESSING SPEEDS AS WELL, & FOR YEARS NOW, per this test years ago -> http://

FOR SECURITY OPERA ROCKS (as far as unpatched security vulnerabilities):

---

Vulnerability Report: Opera 11.x (12/06/2011):

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/33328/

Unpatched 14% (1 of 7 Secunia advisories)

* Mind you, that over time? From all versions UP TO this current one just released today?? THIS IS USUALLY ZERO% & ZERO UNPATCHED!

---

Vulnerability Report: Microsoft Internet Explorer 9.x (12/06/2011):

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/34591/

Unpatched 20% (1 of 5 Secunia advisories)

---

Vulnerability Report: Google Chrome 15.x (12/06/2011):

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/38537/

Unpatched 33% (1 of 3 Secunia advisories)

---

Vulnerability Report: Mozilla Firefox 8.x (12/06/2011):

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/38734/

Unpatched 100% (1 of 1 Secunia advisories)

---

A.) For SECURITY, OPERA ROCKS & HAS OVER TIME BIG TIME, usually @ ZERO unpatched security vulnerabilities AND zero unpatched sec. vulns counts period!

(& Opera leads there for the LONGEST TIME, yes, even in least security vulnerabilities found over time, typically of the "big 3" webbrowsers):

1.) iPhone, IE, Firefox, Safari get stomped at hacker contest -> (No Opera noted as "hosed" though, lol) http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/25/pwn2own_2010_day_one/

AND, WHAT DOES A "HACKER/CRACKER"-SECURITY RESEARCHER TYPE CURRENTLY SAY, ABOUT OPERA (per Opera's showing in #1 above)?

OK:

----

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/25/pwn2own_2010_day_one/

"The problem Microsoft has is they have a big market share, said Vreugdenhil, the hacker who attacked IE. "I use Opera, but that's basically because it has a tiny market share and as far as I know, nobody is really interested in creating a drive-by download for opera. The web at the moment is pretty scary, actually."

(Hence, again showing that even the "hacker/cracker" types use Opera, because it's safer to do so, & from the mindset of those DOING THE HACKING/CRACKING no less!)

----

FOR SPEED OPERA ROCKS ALSO (Especially over time):

B.) For SPEED & Opera leads again there, & CONSISTENTLY + for the LONGEST TIME, yes, even in javascript for the LONGEST time, until FF's new engines took its place TEMPORARILY!

(Until Opera 10.50 @ least, because that's gotten a decent "boost" in that area -> http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/12/22/1911216 (not that it matters though, speeding up javascript is like asking to get infected by malscripted sites &/or adbanners faster imo @ least - that of a "POV" of PC security, mostly)):

2.) SunSpider tests done here recently -> http://www.pcpro.co.uk/gallery/features/356350/on-test-the-hidden-seven-browsers-in-the-windows-ballot/145087 WHERE OPERA REGAINS ITS JAVASCRIPT PROCESSING SPEED LEAD OVER FF YET AGAIN!

OLDER DATA (on performance alone):

3.) And this one too last year also -> http://crave.cnet.co.uk/software/0,39029471,49302491,00.htm

4.) AND IT HAS BEEN "BLOWING AWAY" FIREFOX IN HTML PARSING/PROCESSING SPEEDS AS WELL, & FOR YEARS NOW, per this test years ago -> http://

FOR SECURITY OPERA ROCKS (as far as unpatched security vulnerabilities):

---

Vulnerability Report: Opera 11.x (12/06/2011):

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/33328/

Unpatched 14% (1 of 7 Secunia advisories)

* Mind you, that over time? From all versions UP TO this current one just released today?? THIS IS USUALLY ZERO% & ZERO UNPATCHED!

---

Vulnerability Report: Microsoft Internet Explorer 9.x (12/06/2011):

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/34591/

Unpatched 20% (1 of 5 Secunia advisories)

---

Vulnerability Report: Google Chrome 15.x (12/06/2011):

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/38537/

Unpatched 33% (1 of 3 Secunia advisories)

---

Vulnerability Report: Mozilla Firefox 8.x (12/06/2011):

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/38734/

Unpatched 100% (1 of 1 Secunia advisories)

---

A.) For SECURITY, OPERA ROCKS & HAS OVER TIME BIG TIME, usually @ ZERO unpatched security vulnerabilities AND zero unpatched sec. vulns counts period!

(& Opera leads there for the LONGEST TIME, yes, even in least security vulnerabilities found over time, typically of the "big 3" webbrowsers):

1.) iPhone, IE, Firefox, Safari get stomped at hacker contest -> (No Opera noted as "hosed" though, lol) http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/25/pwn2own_2010_day_one/

AND, WHAT DOES A "HACKER/CRACKER"-SECURITY RESEARCHER TYPE CURRENTLY SAY, ABOUT OPERA (per Opera's showing in #1 above)?

OK:

----

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/25/pwn2own_2010_day_one/

"The problem Microsoft has is they have a big market share, said Vreugdenhil, the hacker who attacked IE. "I use Opera, but that's basically because it has a tiny market share and as far as I know, nobody is really interested in creating a drive-by download for opera. The web at the moment is pretty scary, actually."

(Hence, again showing that even the "hacker/cracker" types use Opera, because it's safer to do so, & from the mindset of those DOING THE HACKING/CRACKING no less!)

----

FOR SPEED OPERA ROCKS ALSO (Especially over time):

B.) For SPEED & Opera leads again there, & CONSISTENTLY + for the LONGEST TIME, yes, even in javascript for the LONGEST time, until FF's new engines took its place TEMPORARILY!

(Until Opera 10.50 @ least, because that's gotten a decent "boost" in that area -> http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/12/22/1911216 (not that it matters though, speeding up javascript is like asking to get infected by malscripted sites &/or adbanners faster imo @ least - that of a "POV" of PC security, mostly)):

2.) SunSpider tests done here recently -> http://www.pcpro.co.uk/gallery/features/356350/on-test-the-hidden-seven-browsers-in-the-windows-ballot/145087 WHERE OPERA REGAINS ITS JAVASCRIPT PROCESSING SPEED LEAD OVER FF YET AGAIN!

OLDER DATA (on performance alone):

3.) And this one too last year also -> http://crave.cnet.co.uk/software/0,39029471,49302491,00.htm

4.) AND IT HAS BEEN "BLOWING AWAY" FIREFOX IN HTML PARSING/PROCESSING SPEEDS AS WELL, & FOR YEARS NOW, per this test years ago -> http://

FOR SECURITY OPERA ROCKS (as far as unpatched security vulnerabilities):

---

Vulnerability Report: Opera 11.x (12/06/2011):

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/33328/

Unpatched 14% (1 of 7 Secunia advisories)

* Mind you, that over time? From all versions UP TO this current one just released today?? THIS IS USUALLY ZERO% & ZERO UNPATCHED!

---

Vulnerability Report: Microsoft Internet Explorer 9.x (12/06/2011):

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/34591/

Unpatched 20% (1 of 5 Secunia advisories)

---

Vulnerability Report: Google Chrome 15.x (12/06/2011):

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/38537/

Unpatched 33% (1 of 3 Secunia advisories)

---

Vulnerability Report: Mozilla Firefox 8.x (12/06/2011):

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/38734/

Unpatched 100% (1 of 1 Secunia advisories)

---

A.) For SECURITY, OPERA ROCKS & HAS OVER TIME BIG TIME, usually @ ZERO unpatched security vulnerabilities AND zero unpatched sec. vulns counts period!

(& Opera leads there for the LONGEST TIME, yes, even in least security vulnerabilities found over time, typically of the "big 3" webbrowsers):

1.) iPhone, IE, Firefox, Safari get stomped at hacker contest -> (No Opera noted as "hosed" though, lol) http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/25/pwn2own_2010_day_one/

AND, WHAT DOES A "HACKER/CRACKER"-SECURITY RESEARCHER TYPE CURRENTLY SAY, ABOUT OPERA (per Opera's showing in #1 above)?

OK:

----

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/25/pwn2own_2010_day_one/

"The problem Microsoft has is they have a big market share, said Vreugdenhil, the hacker who attacked IE. "I use Opera, but that's basically because it has a tiny market share and as far as I know, nobody is really interested in creating a drive-by download for opera. The web at the moment is pretty scary, actually."

(Hence, again showing that even the "hacker/cracker" types use Opera, because it's safer to do so, & from the mindset of those DOING THE HACKING/CRACKING no less!)

----

FOR SPEED OPERA ROCKS ALSO (Especially over time):

B.) For SPEED & Opera leads again there, & CONSISTENTLY + for the LONGEST TIME, yes, even in javascript for the LONGEST time, until FF's new engines took its place TEMPORARILY!

(Until Opera 10.50 @ least, because that's gotten a decent "boost" in that area -> http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/12/22/1911216 (not that it matters though, speeding up javascript is like asking to get infected by malscripted sites &/or adbanners faster imo @ least - that of a "POV" of PC security, mostly)):

2.) SunSpider tests done here recently -> http://www.pcpro.co.uk/gallery/features/356350/on-test-the-hidden-seven-browsers-in-the-windows-ballot/145087 WHERE OPERA REGAINS ITS JAVASCRIPT PROCESSING SPEED LEAD OVER FF YET AGAIN!

OLDER DATA (on performance alone):

3.) And this one too last year also -> http://crave.cnet.co.uk/software/0,39029471,49302491,00.htm

4.) AND IT HAS BEEN "BLOWING AWAY" FIREFOX IN HTML PARSING/PROCESSING SPEEDS AS WELL, & FOR YEARS NOW, per this test years ago -> http://

While you make a good point that Visa and MC won't sit on their asses about data, that is only from a PCI perspective. And realistically its trivially easy to maintain PCI compliance and have an insecure product.

What I would recommend however is work through a professional service like Secunia: https://secunia.com/company/blog_news/news/271. They can lend credibility to your claim and they provide what I personally would describe as an ethical approach to remediation. I would strongly not recommend any further testing on your part unless you are prepared to deal with legal consequences. Not that I agree with companies going after researchers, but it does happen.

Good luck.

Uhhh...dude? Missed the memo? ATM there are more unpatched holes for Linux than there is Windows. Can't blame you as I didn't know that either, the only way i found out was some Linux guy started ragging old APK about his HOSTS file and he laid the links on him. I copied a couple of them, here if you want to check them out yourself..

One two three. i'm actually sorry i didn't think to copy the rest, he has several i had never heard of and i thought I stayed on top of such things. the only ones he had i knew about was Kernel.org getting hacked and this one where MYSQL was hacked and serving malware which i don't know how you can call that anything but typical zombie behavior.

Does that make Linux bad? nope it just makes it a complex OS with millions of lines of code. i bet my last dollar even old Torvalds himself can't tell you what every program in your typical Linux distro is doing, or even what every piece of code in the guts of the OS is calling. OSes are incredibly complex SMP aware sprawling amounts of code with tons of third party piled on top. but to sit here and say 'Linux is immune!" is as delusional as those guys that swore up and down "Macs don't get malware!" and then jumped up and down trying to argue that the definition doesn't include DNSChanger or MacDefender.

TLDR? Everyone gets pwned, Linux gets pwned a lot too. They ALL do.

Uhhh...dude? Missed the memo? ATM there are more unpatched holes for Linux than there is Windows. Can't blame you as I didn't know that either, the only way i found out was some Linux guy started ragging old APK about his HOSTS file and he laid the links on him. I copied a couple of them, here if you want to check them out yourself..

One two three. i'm actually sorry i didn't think to copy the rest, he has several i had never heard of and i thought I stayed on top of such things. the only ones he had i knew about was Kernel.org getting hacked and this one where MYSQL was hacked and serving malware which i don't know how you can call that anything but typical zombie behavior.

Does that make Linux bad? nope it just makes it a complex OS with millions of lines of code. i bet my last dollar even old Torvalds himself can't tell you what every program in your typical Linux distro is doing, or even what every piece of code in the guts of the OS is calling. OSes are incredibly complex SMP aware sprawling amounts of code with tons of third party piled on top. but to sit here and say 'Linux is immune!" is as delusional as those guys that swore up and down "Macs don't get malware!" and then jumped up and down trying to argue that the definition doesn't include DNSChanger or MacDefender.

TLDR? Everyone gets pwned, Linux gets pwned a lot too. They ALL do.

Uhhh...dude? Missed the memo? ATM there are more unpatched holes for Linux than there is Windows. Can't blame you as I didn't know that either, the only way i found out was some Linux guy started ragging old APK about his HOSTS file and he laid the links on him. I copied a couple of them, here if you want to check them out yourself..

One two three. i'm actually sorry i didn't think to copy the rest, he has several i had never heard of and i thought I stayed on top of such things. the only ones he had i knew about was Kernel.org getting hacked and this one where MYSQL was hacked and serving malware which i don't know how you can call that anything but typical zombie behavior.

Does that make Linux bad? nope it just makes it a complex OS with millions of lines of code. i bet my last dollar even old Torvalds himself can't tell you what every program in your typical Linux distro is doing, or even what every piece of code in the guts of the OS is calling. OSes are incredibly complex SMP aware sprawling amounts of code with tons of third party piled on top. but to sit here and say 'Linux is immune!" is as delusional as those guys that swore up and down "Macs don't get malware!" and then jumped up and down trying to argue that the definition doesn't include DNSChanger or MacDefender.

TLDR? Everyone gets pwned, Linux gets pwned a lot too. They ALL do.

Oh please, they are making money hand over fist, getting paid for the majority of Android handsets AND their own WinPhones, and the case will take YEARS which is years of check cashing. Meanwhile you still think half a sentence proves...you can't copypasta? It doesn't surprise me, living in CLI copypasta is probably all you do anymore and you fail at even that. Perhaps you'd like some links on Linux getting pwned and failing, yes? Just to brighten you day? Maybe you can use a Daemon to download the pages and read them in an email client, just like your beloved RMS does. How sad though that you HONESTLY believe your OS, which BTW you STILL can't fucking update without the damned thing breaking, has a shot. remember what your numbers are?

Get ready, here they come! Kinda makes that koolaid just a little bitter now, don't it? I believe in using the best tool for the job, but to say Linux is secure or better than any other complex OS is frankly bullshit. Hell I was talking to a 15 year Linux admin on one of the other sites that had gotten so sick of Linux desktop fuckups they were going to BSD and if THAT didn't "just work" they were gonna wash their hands of FLOSS on the desktop and just go Mac.

BTW if you'd like a little more food for thought, what OS was 3 of the 4 CAs running that were compromised? take a look and see. Maybe they just had bad configs? Surely someone with knowledge would be safe right? Guess again and its not a fluke by any means.

And of course on the retail side you have a decade old Windows beating the shit out of Linux on netbooks proving that your latest and greatest couldn't even compete with a decade old OS,ASUS has given up on your bullshit, remember them? The ones that actually STARTED the whole netbook thing with Linux? And you can't even keep them! Or how about Walmart running away from linux as fast as it can? You got the crazy koolaid drunk enough to say they ALL are paid shills because they won't do your forum dance or CLI horseshit? Meanwhile your "hero" Torvalds the great says Linux isn't planned it grows like a virus!, yeah that would be an STD and explain why you are still a decade behind on the driver front. Oh and when you respond with your usual bullshit and lame excuses could you please go here so we can see which lameness you are gonna use? The current most popular are "use esoteric workarounds" which is ALWAYS popular in Linux land, and "It works for me!" because you neglect to mention the weekend you waste every 6 months to make that statement true.

Oh and in case anyone is curious about the half of the sentence that makes him wet himself in fear the complete sentence is as far as the user is concerned there is NO command line in windows which of course is 100% true, because their OS simply doesn't need it. Here is another sentence for him to fear BTW Linux IS Windows 98, no more, no less because what was

Oh please, they are making money hand over fist, getting paid for the majority of Android handsets AND their own WinPhones, and the case will take YEARS which is years of check cashing. Meanwhile you still think half a sentence proves...you can't copypasta? It doesn't surprise me, living in CLI copypasta is probably all you do anymore and you fail at even that. Perhaps you'd like some links on Linux getting pwned and failing, yes? Just to brighten you day? Maybe you can use a Daemon to download the pages and read them in an email client, just like your beloved RMS does. How sad though that you HONESTLY believe your OS, which BTW you STILL can't fucking update without the damned thing breaking, has a shot. remember what your numbers are?

Get ready, here they come! Kinda makes that koolaid just a little bitter now, don't it? I believe in using the best tool for the job, but to say Linux is secure or better than any other complex OS is frankly bullshit. Hell I was talking to a 15 year Linux admin on one of the other sites that had gotten so sick of Linux desktop fuckups they were going to BSD and if THAT didn't "just work" they were gonna wash their hands of FLOSS on the desktop and just go Mac.

BTW if you'd like a little more food for thought, what OS was 3 of the 4 CAs running that were compromised? take a look and see. Maybe they just had bad configs? Surely someone with knowledge would be safe right? Guess again and its not a fluke by any means.

And of course on the retail side you have a decade old Windows beating the shit out of Linux on netbooks proving that your latest and greatest couldn't even compete with a decade old OS,ASUS has given up on your bullshit, remember them? The ones that actually STARTED the whole netbook thing with Linux? And you can't even keep them! Or how about Walmart running away from linux as fast as it can? You got the crazy koolaid drunk enough to say they ALL are paid shills because they won't do your forum dance or CLI horseshit? Meanwhile your "hero" Torvalds the great says Linux isn't planned it grows like a virus!, yeah that would be an STD and explain why you are still a decade behind on the driver front. Oh and when you respond with your usual bullshit and lame excuses could you please go here so we can see which lameness you are gonna use? The current most popular are "use esoteric workarounds" which is ALWAYS popular in Linux land, and "It works for me!" because you neglect to mention the weekend you waste every 6 months to make that statement true.

Oh and in case anyone is curious about the half of the sentence that makes him wet himself in fear the complete sentence is as far as the user is concerned there is NO command line in windows which of course is 100% true, because their OS simply doesn't need it. Here is another sentence for him to fear BTW Linux IS Windows 98, no more, no less because what was

Oh please, they are making money hand over fist, getting paid for the majority of Android handsets AND their own WinPhones, and the case will take YEARS which is years of check cashing. Meanwhile you still think half a sentence proves...you can't copypasta? It doesn't surprise me, living in CLI copypasta is probably all you do anymore and you fail at even that. Perhaps you'd like some links on Linux getting pwned and failing, yes? Just to brighten you day? Maybe you can use a Daemon to download the pages and read them in an email client, just like your beloved RMS does. How sad though that you HONESTLY believe your OS, which BTW you STILL can't fucking update without the damned thing breaking, has a shot. remember what your numbers are?

Get ready, here they come! Kinda makes that koolaid just a little bitter now, don't it? I believe in using the best tool for the job, but to say Linux is secure or better than any other complex OS is frankly bullshit. Hell I was talking to a 15 year Linux admin on one of the other sites that had gotten so sick of Linux desktop fuckups they were going to BSD and if THAT didn't "just work" they were gonna wash their hands of FLOSS on the desktop and just go Mac.

BTW if you'd like a little more food for thought, what OS was 3 of the 4 CAs running that were compromised? take a look and see. Maybe they just had bad configs? Surely someone with knowledge would be safe right? Guess again and its not a fluke by any means.

And of course on the retail side you have a decade old Windows beating the shit out of Linux on netbooks proving that your latest and greatest couldn't even compete with a decade old OS,ASUS has given up on your bullshit, remember them? The ones that actually STARTED the whole netbook thing with Linux? And you can't even keep them! Or how about Walmart running away from linux as fast as it can? You got the crazy koolaid drunk enough to say they ALL are paid shills because they won't do your forum dance or CLI horseshit? Meanwhile your "hero" Torvalds the great says Linux isn't planned it grows like a virus!, yeah that would be an STD and explain why you are still a decade behind on the driver front. Oh and when you respond with your usual bullshit and lame excuses could you please go here so we can see which lameness you are gonna use? The current most popular are "use esoteric workarounds" which is ALWAYS popular in Linux land, and "It works for me!" because you neglect to mention the weekend you waste every 6 months to make that statement true.

Oh and in case anyone is curious about the half of the sentence that makes him wet himself in fear the complete sentence is as far as the user is concerned there is NO command line in windows which of course is 100% true, because their OS simply doesn't need it. Here is another sentence for him to fear BTW Linux IS Windows 98, no more, no less because what was

Sure thing friend, but remember, be careful what you wish for!

Get ready, here they come! Kinda makes that koolaid just a little bitter now, don't it? I believe in using the best tool for the job, but to say Linux is secure or better than any other complex OS is frankly bullshit. Hell I was talking to a 15 year Linux admin on one of the other sites that had gotten so sick of Linux fuckups they were going to BSD and if THAT didn't "just work" they were gonna wash their hands of FLOSS on the desktop and just go Mac.

BTW if you'd like a little more food for thought, what OS was 3 of the 4 CAs running that were compromised? take a look and see. Maybe they just had configs? Surely someone with knowledge would be safe right? Guess again and its not a fluke by any means.

BTW if you wish to run Linux because its cheap/free, or to make a political statement? Not a problem with me, I'm personally gonna try out FreeBSD on turkey week to see if I can lower my costs on refurbs. But to pretend that Linux is a magical woobie that makes you hack proof like the one I was responding to (Notice how I was labeled troll for pointing out his "Herp derp, Linux is safe herp derp" was bullshit? Enjoy that groupthink koolaid) then you deserve a good smacking. News Flash: ALL OSES ARE COMPLEX,COMPLEXITY LEADS TO BUGS BUGS LEAD TO HACKS. There USED to be smart people here on Slashdot that knew basics like this, but now its a fanboi jerkoff. As soon as I find a decent OS site i'll be moving on, and if you look at how far /. numbers have dropped i'm far from being the only one sick of being handed Koolaid.

Sure thing friend, but remember, be careful what you wish for!

Get ready, here they come! Kinda makes that koolaid just a little bitter now, don't it? I believe in using the best tool for the job, but to say Linux is secure or better than any other complex OS is frankly bullshit. Hell I was talking to a 15 year Linux admin on one of the other sites that had gotten so sick of Linux fuckups they were going to BSD and if THAT didn't "just work" they were gonna wash their hands of FLOSS on the desktop and just go Mac.

BTW if you'd like a little more food for thought, what OS was 3 of the 4 CAs running that were compromised? take a look and see. Maybe they just had configs? Surely someone with knowledge would be safe right? Guess again and its not a fluke by any means.

BTW if you wish to run Linux because its cheap/free, or to make a political statement? Not a problem with me, I'm personally gonna try out FreeBSD on turkey week to see if I can lower my costs on refurbs. But to pretend that Linux is a magical woobie that makes you hack proof like the one I was responding to (Notice how I was labeled troll for pointing out his "Herp derp, Linux is safe herp derp" was bullshit? Enjoy that groupthink koolaid) then you deserve a good smacking. News Flash: ALL OSES ARE COMPLEX,COMPLEXITY LEADS TO BUGS BUGS LEAD TO HACKS. There USED to be smart people here on Slashdot that knew basics like this, but now its a fanboi jerkoff. As soon as I find a decent OS site i'll be moving on, and if you look at how far /. numbers have dropped i'm far from being the only one sick of being handed Koolaid.

Sure thing friend, but remember, be careful what you wish for!

Get ready, here they come! Kinda makes that koolaid just a little bitter now, don't it? I believe in using the best tool for the job, but to say Linux is secure or better than any other complex OS is frankly bullshit. Hell I was talking to a 15 year Linux admin on one of the other sites that had gotten so sick of Linux fuckups they were going to BSD and if THAT didn't "just work" they were gonna wash their hands of FLOSS on the desktop and just go Mac.

BTW if you'd like a little more food for thought, what OS was 3 of the 4 CAs running that were compromised? take a look and see. Maybe they just had configs? Surely someone with knowledge would be safe right? Guess again and its not a fluke by any means.

BTW if you wish to run Linux because its cheap/free, or to make a political statement? Not a problem with me, I'm personally gonna try out FreeBSD on turkey week to see if I can lower my costs on refurbs. But to pretend that Linux is a magical woobie that makes you hack proof like the one I was responding to (Notice how I was labeled troll for pointing out his "Herp derp, Linux is safe herp derp" was bullshit? Enjoy that groupthink koolaid) then you deserve a good smacking. News Flash: ALL OSES ARE COMPLEX,COMPLEXITY LEADS TO BUGS BUGS LEAD TO HACKS. There USED to be smart people here on Slashdot that knew basics like this, but now its a fanboi jerkoff. As soon as I find a decent OS site i'll be moving on, and if you look at how far /. numbers have dropped i'm far from being the only one sick of being handed Koolaid.

In this/these sense(s) - & I ran it for all of summer 2010 into 2011, & before that (Slackware 1.02 circa 1994, RedHat 6.x, etc. on & off over time - I always come back to Windows, & some of the reasons for that are below):

"As for Linux not being as good as Windows, in what sense?" - by tragedy (27079) on Tuesday November 08, @03:10PM (#37989440)

1st - Linux also doesn't have as high quality drivers or as many because board makers KNOW what is "running the show/market " out there, Windows - so, they cater to it immensely!

2nd - Nor does Linux have as many games, by FAR, either (this is mostly the home market in fact!)

3rd - Linux only has 1.19% of marketshare amongst users on the desktop, see here -> http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=8&qpcustomd=0

4th - Despite all those "Open 'SORES'" eyes (most of whom couldn't code to SAVE THEIR LIVES mind you) allegedly poring over Linux code, how come it has that many more unpatched bugs than Windows 7 has, hmmm?? Not just remote exploits but bugs period (localsystem & localnetwork exploitable) -> http://secunia.com/advisories/product/2719/?task=advisories

Closed source is HARDER for hacker/crackers to attack as well, because you're stuck either disassembling it (especially tough with kernel level debuggers) OR fuzzing it, either is tougher than searching out problems in Linux, which you just load into a compiler & step trace its "Open 'SORES'" code with to find screwups in security... hence it still has more security bugs, AND, they are unpatched (despite all the "Open 'SORES'" eyes poring over it, lol!)

* There you go...

APK

P.S.=> There IS A REASON LINUX IS DEAD-LAST IN THE EYES OF USERS OVERALL (& the only REAL REASON it gets used @ all is because it's a 'freebie', low cost = appealing to businesses, that is, until Linux gets breached (& there's plenty of CURRENT DATA on that from my posts here in the CA breaches, KERNEL.ORG, MySQL.org & others being penetrated & yes, they run Linux))... apk

Are you still butthurt that your OS can't function without CLI and is more like Win98 than a modern OS? Poor baby, I can understand then why you would be afraid to use the entire quote then since it make your magical woobie OS look even more like shit on a shingle.

As for what the other guy was trying to point out, which apparently like your inability to even copypasta is just beyond your tiny mind, is that Bill Gates is part of an exclusive club, the .01% percent. They are so high above even the 1%ers that they could buy their own third world and even second world countries and have themselves set as "King god of the mountain" if that is what tickled their fancy. And while the Koch bros use theirs to try to buttfuck as many people in the USA as they possibly can bill uses his to try to help people and even to advocate raising his own taxes. If you weren't completely clueless then you'd know the man even went so far as to go against the current CEO of MSFT in trying to get Washington state to raise taxes on the rich.

But hey, what can anyone expect from a moran that can't even copypasta a single sentence because the truth of that sentence makes him shit himself with fear. So thanks for this opportunity to show yet again what a fail both you AND the product you shill for is.. the correct sentence is as far as the user is concerned THERE IS NO COMMAND LINE IN WINDOWS and that statement is as true as the sky is blue. ask the next 20 people you meet on the street how to call up CLI in Windows and see what you get, but you know this don't you? This is why that little sentence makes you afraid. It is also why you bring up server even in talks about desktops, hoping to move the goalposts, but server ain't doing so well either it turns out. Here enjoy some fail pudding..

Not only does Linux have 4x++ the amount of unpatched security vulnerabilities its competitor Windows Server 2008 does, but it bears 3 remotely exploitable unpatched security vulnerabilities strike one, strike two strike three and you're out of there! Let me end with a little food for thought, did you know that THREE out of the FOUR recently breached CAs are running Linux? Be happy to show you the Netcraft report if you like, but i think I'd rather show some other recent uber fails.

In light of this evidence I can see why that sentence scares you so much you would corrupt it to make your sig, like a talisman to ward off the stench of fail and death that surrounds you. But numbers can't be warded off and after twenty years of slaving, after all that money wasted by Shuttleworth you are STILL lower than JavaME and there is a whole website dedicated To your bullshit and excuses that you use to cover your wasted effort. I'd laugh but its kinda sad more than anything else. And you wonder why retailers like me won't touch your product?

Are you still butthurt that your OS can't function without CLI and is more like Win98 than a modern OS? Poor baby, I can understand then why you would be afraid to use the entire quote then since it make your magical woobie OS look even more like shit on a shingle.

As for what the other guy was trying to point out, which apparently like your inability to even copypasta is just beyond your tiny mind, is that Bill Gates is part of an exclusive club, the .01% percent. They are so high above even the 1%ers that they could buy their own third world and even second world countries and have themselves set as "King god of the mountain" if that is what tickled their fancy. And while the Koch bros use theirs to try to buttfuck as many people in the USA as they possibly can bill uses his to try to help people and even to advocate raising his own taxes. If you weren't completely clueless then you'd know the man even went so far as to go against the current CEO of MSFT in trying to get Washington state to raise taxes on the rich.

But hey, what can anyone expect from a moran that can't even copypasta a single sentence because the truth of that sentence makes him shit himself with fear. So thanks for this opportunity to show yet again what a fail both you AND the product you shill for is.. the correct sentence is as far as the user is concerned THERE IS NO COMMAND LINE IN WINDOWS and that statement is as true as the sky is blue. ask the next 20 people you meet on the street how to call up CLI in Windows and see what you get, but you know this don't you? This is why that little sentence makes you afraid. It is also why you bring up server even in talks about desktops, hoping to move the goalposts, but server ain't doing so well either it turns out. Here enjoy some fail pudding..

Not only does Linux have 4x++ the amount of unpatched security vulnerabilities its competitor Windows Server 2008 does, but it bears 3 remotely exploitable unpatched security vulnerabilities strike one, strike two strike three and you're out of there! Let me end with a little food for thought, did you know that THREE out of the FOUR recently breached CAs are running Linux? Be happy to show you the Netcraft report if you like, but i think I'd rather show some other recent uber fails.

In light of this evidence I can see why that sentence scares you so much you would corrupt it to make your sig, like a talisman to ward off the stench of fail and death that surrounds you. But numbers can't be warded off and after twenty years of slaving, after all that money wasted by Shuttleworth you are STILL lower than JavaME and there is a whole website dedicated To your bullshit and excuses that you use to cover your wasted effort. I'd laugh but its kinda sad more than anything else. And you wonder why retailers like me won't touch your product?

Are you still butthurt that your OS can't function without CLI and is more like Win98 than a modern OS? Poor baby, I can understand then why you would be afraid to use the entire quote then since it make your magical woobie OS look even more like shit on a shingle.

As for what the other guy was trying to point out, which apparently like your inability to even copypasta is just beyond your tiny mind, is that Bill Gates is part of an exclusive club, the .01% percent. They are so high above even the 1%ers that they could buy their own third world and even second world countries and have themselves set as "King god of the mountain" if that is what tickled their fancy. And while the Koch bros use theirs to try to buttfuck as many people in the USA as they possibly can bill uses his to try to help people and even to advocate raising his own taxes. If you weren't completely clueless then you'd know the man even went so far as to go against the current CEO of MSFT in trying to get Washington state to raise taxes on the rich.

But hey, what can anyone expect from a moran that can't even copypasta a single sentence because the truth of that sentence makes him shit himself with fear. So thanks for this opportunity to show yet again what a fail both you AND the product you shill for is.. the correct sentence is as far as the user is concerned THERE IS NO COMMAND LINE IN WINDOWS and that statement is as true as the sky is blue. ask the next 20 people you meet on the street how to call up CLI in Windows and see what you get, but you know this don't you? This is why that little sentence makes you afraid. It is also why you bring up server even in talks about desktops, hoping to move the goalposts, but server ain't doing so well either it turns out. Here enjoy some fail pudding..

Not only does Linux have 4x++ the amount of unpatched security vulnerabilities its competitor Windows Server 2008 does, but it bears 3 remotely exploitable unpatched security vulnerabilities strike one, strike two strike three and you're out of there! Let me end with a little food for thought, did you know that THREE out of the FOUR recently breached CAs are running Linux? Be happy to show you the Netcraft report if you like, but i think I'd rather show some other recent uber fails.

In light of this evidence I can see why that sentence scares you so much you would corrupt it to make your sig, like a talisman to ward off the stench of fail and death that surrounds you. But numbers can't be warded off and after twenty years of slaving, after all that money wasted by Shuttleworth you are STILL lower than JavaME and there is a whole website dedicated To your bullshit and excuses that you use to cover your wasted effort. I'd laugh but its kinda sad more than anything else. And you wonder why retailers like me won't touch your product?

You are such a duplicitous idiot. I'm sorry to feed a troll. I'm especially sorry I went to so much trouble to feed a troll. Here goes anyway.
You say that:

NOT A SINGLE ONE IS FIXED HERE (& there's 18 OF THEM!) & I'll even QUOTE secunia on that now:

http://secunia.com/advisories/14295/

"Secunia is currently not aware of an updated kernel version addressing the vulnerabilities."

Once again, your reading comprehension and comprehension in general are simply broken. That is an advisory from nearly 6 years ago with incomplete information in the summary. If you bothered to dig deeper than the summary, the links to the CVE's on that page directly state that 9 of those 18 problems are fixed. The other 9 are also fixed, although the information directly on that Secunia page doesn't say so, but other sources do. Since you asked me to "KINDLY SHOW US PROOF THEY ARE FIXED (all 18 of them) as you stated..." (even though the responsibility is yours to prove that information that old is actually correct rather than mine to prove it wrong), here's some additional information:

#1 is covered by CVE-2005-0176, which is addressed at http://secunia.com/advisories/cve_reference/CVE-2005-0176/, which specifically says that it affects only kernel versions 2.6.9 and earlier.

#2 is covered by CVE-2005-0178, which is addressed at http://secunia.com/advisories/cve_reference/CVE-2005-0178/, which specifically says that it affects only kernel versions before 2.6.8.1.

#3 is covered by CVE-2005-0204, which is addressed at http://secunia.com/advisories/cve_reference/CVE-2005-0204/, which specifically says that it affects only kernel versions before 2.6.9

#4 is covered by CVE-2005-0177, which is addressed at http://secunia.com/advisories/cve_reference/CVE-2005-0177/, which specifically says that it affects only kernel versions before 2.6.8.1.

#5 is covered by CVE-2005-0209, which is addressed at http://secunia.com/advisories/cve_reference/CVE-2005-0209/, which specifically says that it affects only kernel version 2.6.8.1.

#6 is covered by CVE-2005-0210, which is addressed at http://secunia.com/advisories/cve_reference/CVE-2005-0210/, which specifically says that it affects only kernel version 2.6.8.1.

#7 is covered by CVE-2005-0449, which is addressed at http://secunia.com/advisories/cve_reference/CVE-2005-0449/, which specifically says that it affects only kernel versions before 2.6.8.1.

#8 is covered by CVE-2005-0839, which is addressed at http://secunia.com/advisories/cve_reference/CVE-2005-0839/, which specifically says that it affects only kernel versions before 2.6.11.

#9 is covered by CVE-2005-0937, which is addressed at http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2005-0937, updated 08/21/2010. It It lists affected kernel versions and they stop at 2.6.9.

#10 is covered by CVE-2005-0867, which is addressed at http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2005-0867 updated 08/21/2010. It lists affected kernel versions and the only version is 2.6.0. Confirmed fixed in 2.6.9.

#11 is covered by CVE-2005-0135, which is addressed at http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/

You are such a duplicitous idiot. I'm sorry to feed a troll. I'm especially sorry I went to so much trouble to feed a troll. Here goes anyway.
You say that:

NOT A SINGLE ONE IS FIXED HERE (& there's 18 OF THEM!) & I'll even QUOTE secunia on that now:

http://secunia.com/advisories/14295/

"Secunia is currently not aware of an updated kernel version addressing the vulnerabilities."

Once again, your reading comprehension and comprehension in general are simply broken. That is an advisory from nearly 6 years ago with incomplete information in the summary. If you bothered to dig deeper than the summary, the links to the CVE's on that page directly state that 9 of those 18 problems are fixed. The other 9 are also fixed, although the information directly on that Secunia page doesn't say so, but other sources do. Since you asked me to "KINDLY SHOW US PROOF THEY ARE FIXED (all 18 of them) as you stated..." (even though the responsibility is yours to prove that information that old is actually correct rather than mine to prove it wrong), here's some additional information:

#1 is covered by CVE-2005-0176, which is addressed at http://secunia.com/advisories/cve_reference/CVE-2005-0176/, which specifically says that it affects only kernel versions 2.6.9 and earlier.

#2 is covered by CVE-2005-0178, which is addressed at http://secunia.com/advisories/cve_reference/CVE-2005-0178/, which specifically says that it affects only kernel versions before 2.6.8.1.

#3 is covered by CVE-2005-0204, which is addressed at http://secunia.com/advisories/cve_reference/CVE-2005-0204/, which specifically says that it affects only kernel versions before 2.6.9

#4 is covered by CVE-2005-0177, which is addressed at http://secunia.com/advisories/cve_reference/CVE-2005-0177/, which specifically says that it affects only kernel versions before 2.6.8.1.

#5 is covered by CVE-2005-0209, which is addressed at http://secunia.com/advisories/cve_reference/CVE-2005-0209/, which specifically says that it affects only kernel version 2.6.8.1.

#6 is covered by CVE-2005-0210, which is addressed at http://secunia.com/advisories/cve_reference/CVE-2005-0210/, which specifically says that it affects only kernel version 2.6.8.1.

#7 is covered by CVE-2005-0449, which is addressed at http://secunia.com/advisories/cve_reference/CVE-2005-0449/, which specifically says that it affects only kernel versions before 2.6.8.1.

#8 is covered by CVE-2005-0839, which is addressed at http://secunia.com/advisories/cve_reference/CVE-2005-0839/, which specifically says that it affects only kernel versions before 2.6.11.

#9 is covered by CVE-2005-0937, which is addressed at http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2005-0937, updated 08/21/2010. It It lists affected kernel versions and they stop at 2.6.9.

#10 is covered by CVE-2005-0867, which is addressed at http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2005-0867 updated 08/21/2010. It lists affected kernel versions and the only version is 2.6.0. Confirmed fixed in 2.6.9.

#11 is covered by CVE-2005-0135, which is addressed at http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/

You are such a duplicitous idiot. I'm sorry to feed a troll. I'm especially sorry I went to so much trouble to feed a troll. Here goes anyway.
You say that:

NOT A SINGLE ONE IS FIXED HERE (& there's 18 OF THEM!) & I'll even QUOTE secunia on that now:

http://secunia.com/advisories/14295/

"Secunia is currently not aware of an updated kernel version addressing the vulnerabilities."

Once again, your reading comprehension and comprehension in general are simply broken. That is an advisory from nearly 6 years ago with incomplete information in the summary. If you bothered to dig deeper than the summary, the links to the CVE's on that page directly state that 9 of those 18 problems are fixed. The other 9 are also fixed, although the information directly on that Secunia page doesn't say so, but other sources do. Since you asked me to "KINDLY SHOW US PROOF THEY ARE FIXED (all 18 of them) as you stated..." (even though the responsibility is yours to prove that information that old is actually correct rather than mine to prove it wrong), here's some additional information:

#1 is covered by CVE-2005-0176, which is addressed at http://secunia.com/advisories/cve_reference/CVE-2005-0176/, which specifically says that it affects only kernel versions 2.6.9 and earlier.

#2 is covered by CVE-2005-0178, which is addressed at http://secunia.com/advisories/cve_reference/CVE-2005-0178/, which specifically says that it affects only kernel versions before 2.6.8.1.

#3 is covered by CVE-2005-0204, which is addressed at http://secunia.com/advisories/cve_reference/CVE-2005-0204/, which specifically says that it affects only kernel versions before 2.6.9

#4 is covered by CVE-2005-0177, which is addressed at http://secunia.com/advisories/cve_reference/CVE-2005-0177/, which specifically says that it affects only kernel versions before 2.6.8.1.

#5 is covered by CVE-2005-0209, which is addressed at http://secunia.com/advisories/cve_reference/CVE-2005-0209/, which specifically says that it affects only kernel version 2.6.8.1.

#6 is covered by CVE-2005-0210, which is addressed at http://secunia.com/advisories/cve_reference/CVE-2005-0210/, which specifically says that it affects only kernel version 2.6.8.1.

#7 is covered by CVE-2005-0449, which is addressed at http://secunia.com/advisories/cve_reference/CVE-2005-0449/, which specifically says that it affects only kernel versions before 2.6.8.1.

#8 is covered by CVE-2005-0839, which is addressed at http://secunia.com/advisories/cve_reference/CVE-2005-0839/, which specifically says that it affects only kernel versions before 2.6.11.

#9 is covered by CVE-2005-0937, which is addressed at http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2005-0937, updated 08/21/2010. It It lists affected kernel versions and they stop at 2.6.9.

#10 is covered by CVE-2005-0867, which is addressed at http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2005-0867 updated 08/21/2010. It lists affected kernel versions and the only version is 2.6.0. Confirmed fixed in 2.6.9.

#11 is covered by CVE-2005-0135, which is addressed at http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/

You are such a duplicitous idiot. I'm sorry to feed a troll. I'm especially sorry I went to so much trouble to feed a troll. Here goes anyway.
You say that:

NOT A SINGLE ONE IS FIXED HERE (& there's 18 OF THEM!) & I'll even QUOTE secunia on that now:

http://secunia.com/advisories/14295/

"Secunia is currently not aware of an updated kernel version addressing the vulnerabilities."

Once again, your reading comprehension and comprehension in general are simply broken. That is an advisory from nearly 6 years ago with incomplete information in the summary. If you bothered to dig deeper than the summary, the links to the CVE's on that page directly state that 9 of those 18 problems are fixed. The other 9 are also fixed, although the information directly on that Secunia page doesn't say so, but other sources do. Since you asked me to "KINDLY SHOW US PROOF THEY ARE FIXED (all 18 of them) as you stated..." (even though the responsibility is yours to prove that information that old is actually correct rather than mine to prove it wrong), here's some additional information:

#1 is covered by CVE-2005-0176, which is addressed at http://secunia.com/advisories/cve_reference/CVE-2005-0176/, which specifically says that it affects only kernel versions 2.6.9 and earlier.

#2 is covered by CVE-2005-0178, which is addressed at http://secunia.com/advisories/cve_reference/CVE-2005-0178/, which specifically says that it affects only kernel versions before 2.6.8.1.

#3 is covered by CVE-2005-0204, which is addressed at http://secunia.com/advisories/cve_reference/CVE-2005-0204/, which specifically says that it affects only kernel versions before 2.6.9

#4 is covered by CVE-2005-0177, which is addressed at http://secunia.com/advisories/cve_reference/CVE-2005-0177/, which specifically says that it affects only kernel versions before 2.6.8.1.

#5 is covered by CVE-2005-0209, which is addressed at http://secunia.com/advisories/cve_reference/CVE-2005-0209/, which specifically says that it affects only kernel version 2.6.8.1.

#6 is covered by CVE-2005-0210, which is addressed at http://secunia.com/advisories/cve_reference/CVE-2005-0210/, which specifically says that it affects only kernel version 2.6.8.1.

#7 is covered by CVE-2005-0449, which is addressed at http://secunia.com/advisories/cve_reference/CVE-2005-0449/, which specifically says that it affects only kernel versions before 2.6.8.1.

#8 is covered by CVE-2005-0839, which is addressed at http://secunia.com/advisories/cve_reference/CVE-2005-0839/, which specifically says that it affects only kernel versions before 2.6.11.

#9 is covered by CVE-2005-0937, which is addressed at http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2005-0937, updated 08/21/2010. It It lists affected kernel versions and they stop at 2.6.9.

#10 is covered by CVE-2005-0867, which is addressed at http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2005-0867 updated 08/21/2010. It lists affected kernel versions and the only version is 2.6.0. Confirmed fixed in 2.6.9.

#11 is covered by CVE-2005-0135, which is addressed at http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/

You are such a duplicitous idiot. I'm sorry to feed a troll. I'm especially sorry I went to so much trouble to feed a troll. Here goes anyway.
You say that:

NOT A SINGLE ONE IS FIXED HERE (& there's 18 OF THEM!) & I'll even QUOTE secunia on that now:

http://secunia.com/advisories/14295/

"Secunia is currently not aware of an updated kernel version addressing the vulnerabilities."

Once again, your reading comprehension and comprehension in general are simply broken. That is an advisory from nearly 6 years ago with incomplete information in the summary. If you bothered to dig deeper than the summary, the links to the CVE's on that page directly state that 9 of those 18 problems are fixed. The other 9 are also fixed, although the information directly on that Secunia page doesn't say so, but other sources do. Since you asked me to "KINDLY SHOW US PROOF THEY ARE FIXED (all 18 of them) as you stated..." (even though the responsibility is yours to prove that information that old is actually correct rather than mine to prove it wrong), here's some additional information:

#1 is covered by CVE-2005-0176, which is addressed at http://secunia.com/advisories/cve_reference/CVE-2005-0176/, which specifically says that it affects only kernel versions 2.6.9 and earlier.

#2 is covered by CVE-2005-0178, which is addressed at http://secunia.com/advisories/cve_reference/CVE-2005-0178/, which specifically says that it affects only kernel versions before 2.6.8.1.

#3 is covered by CVE-2005-0204, which is addressed at http://secunia.com/advisories/cve_reference/CVE-2005-0204/, which specifically says that it affects only kernel versions before 2.6.9

#4 is covered by CVE-2005-0177, which is addressed at http://secunia.com/advisories/cve_reference/CVE-2005-0177/, which specifically says that it affects only kernel versions before 2.6.8.1.

#5 is covered by CVE-2005-0209, which is addressed at http://secunia.com/advisories/cve_reference/CVE-2005-0209/, which specifically says that it affects only kernel version 2.6.8.1.

#6 is covered by CVE-2005-0210, which is addressed at http://secunia.com/advisories/cve_reference/CVE-2005-0210/, which specifically says that it affects only kernel version 2.6.8.1.

#7 is covered by CVE-2005-0449, which is addressed at http://secunia.com/advisories/cve_reference/CVE-2005-0449/, which specifically says that it affects only kernel versions before 2.6.8.1.

#8 is covered by CVE-2005-0839, which is addressed at http://secunia.com/advisories/cve_reference/CVE-2005-0839/, which specifically says that it affects only kernel versions before 2.6.11.

#9 is covered by CVE-2005-0937, which is addressed at http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2005-0937, updated 08/21/2010. It It lists affected kernel versions and they stop at 2.6.9.

#10 is covered by CVE-2005-0867, which is addressed at http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2005-0867 updated 08/21/2010. It lists affected kernel versions and the only version is 2.6.0. Confirmed fixed in 2.6.9.

#11 is covered by CVE-2005-0135, which is addressed at http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/

You are such a duplicitous idiot. I'm sorry to feed a troll. I'm especially sorry I went to so much trouble to feed a troll. Here goes anyway.
You say that:

NOT A SINGLE ONE IS FIXED HERE (& there's 18 OF THEM!) & I'll even QUOTE secunia on that now:

http://secunia.com/advisories/14295/

"Secunia is currently not aware of an updated kernel version addressing the vulnerabilities."

Once again, your reading comprehension and comprehension in general are simply broken. That is an advisory from nearly 6 years ago with incomplete information in the summary. If you bothered to dig deeper than the summary, the links to the CVE's on that page directly state that 9 of those 18 problems are fixed. The other 9 are also fixed, although the information directly on that Secunia page doesn't say so, but other sources do. Since you asked me to "KINDLY SHOW US PROOF THEY ARE FIXED (all 18 of them) as you stated..." (even though the responsibility is yours to prove that information that old is actually correct rather than mine to prove it wrong), here's some additional information:

#1 is covered by CVE-2005-0176, which is addressed at http://secunia.com/advisories/cve_reference/CVE-2005-0176/, which specifically says that it affects only kernel versions 2.6.9 and earlier.

#2 is covered by CVE-2005-0178, which is addressed at http://secunia.com/advisories/cve_reference/CVE-2005-0178/, which specifically says that it affects only kernel versions before 2.6.8.1.

#3 is covered by CVE-2005-0204, which is addressed at http://secunia.com/advisories/cve_reference/CVE-2005-0204/, which specifically says that it affects only kernel versions before 2.6.9

#4 is covered by CVE-2005-0177, which is addressed at http://secunia.com/advisories/cve_reference/CVE-2005-0177/, which specifically says that it affects only kernel versions before 2.6.8.1.

#5 is covered by CVE-2005-0209, which is addressed at http://secunia.com/advisories/cve_reference/CVE-2005-0209/, which specifically says that it affects only kernel version 2.6.8.1.

#6 is covered by CVE-2005-0210, which is addressed at http://secunia.com/advisories/cve_reference/CVE-2005-0210/, which specifically says that it affects only kernel version 2.6.8.1.

#7 is covered by CVE-2005-0449, which is addressed at http://secunia.com/advisories/cve_reference/CVE-2005-0449/, which specifically says that it affects only kernel versions before 2.6.8.1.

#8 is covered by CVE-2005-0839, which is addressed at http://secunia.com/advisories/cve_reference/CVE-2005-0839/, which specifically says that it affects only kernel versions before 2.6.11.

#9 is covered by CVE-2005-0937, which is addressed at http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2005-0937, updated 08/21/2010. It It lists affected kernel versions and they stop at 2.6.9.

#10 is covered by CVE-2005-0867, which is addressed at http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2005-0867 updated 08/21/2010. It lists affected kernel versions and the only version is 2.6.0. Confirmed fixed in 2.6.9.

#11 is covered by CVE-2005-0135, which is addressed at http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/

You are such a duplicitous idiot. I'm sorry to feed a troll. I'm especially sorry I went to so much trouble to feed a troll. Here goes anyway.
You say that:

NOT A SINGLE ONE IS FIXED HERE (& there's 18 OF THEM!) & I'll even QUOTE secunia on that now:

http://secunia.com/advisories/14295/

"Secunia is currently not aware of an updated kernel version addressing the vulnerabilities."

Once again, your reading comprehension and comprehension in general are simply broken. That is an advisory from nearly 6 years ago with incomplete information in the summary. If you bothered to dig deeper than the summary, the links to the CVE's on that page directly state that 9 of those 18 problems are fixed. The other 9 are also fixed, although the information directly on that Secunia page doesn't say so, but other sources do. Since you asked me to "KINDLY SHOW US PROOF THEY ARE FIXED (all 18 of them) as you stated..." (even though the responsibility is yours to prove that information that old is actually correct rather than mine to prove it wrong), here's some additional information:

#1 is covered by CVE-2005-0176, which is addressed at http://secunia.com/advisories/cve_reference/CVE-2005-0176/, which specifically says that it affects only kernel versions 2.6.9 and earlier.

#2 is covered by CVE-2005-0178, which is addressed at http://secunia.com/advisories/cve_reference/CVE-2005-0178/, which specifically says that it affects only kernel versions before 2.6.8.1.

#3 is covered by CVE-2005-0204, which is addressed at http://secunia.com/advisories/cve_reference/CVE-2005-0204/, which specifically says that it affects only kernel versions before 2.6.9

#4 is covered by CVE-2005-0177, which is addressed at http://secunia.com/advisories/cve_reference/CVE-2005-0177/, which specifically says that it affects only kernel versions before 2.6.8.1.

#5 is covered by CVE-2005-0209, which is addressed at http://secunia.com/advisories/cve_reference/CVE-2005-0209/, which specifically says that it affects only kernel version 2.6.8.1.

#6 is covered by CVE-2005-0210, which is addressed at http://secunia.com/advisories/cve_reference/CVE-2005-0210/, which specifically says that it affects only kernel version 2.6.8.1.

#7 is covered by CVE-2005-0449, which is addressed at http://secunia.com/advisories/cve_reference/CVE-2005-0449/, which specifically says that it affects only kernel versions before 2.6.8.1.

#8 is covered by CVE-2005-0839, which is addressed at http://secunia.com/advisories/cve_reference/CVE-2005-0839/, which specifically says that it affects only kernel versions before 2.6.11.

#9 is covered by CVE-2005-0937, which is addressed at http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2005-0937, updated 08/21/2010. It It lists affected kernel versions and they stop at 2.6.9.

#10 is covered by CVE-2005-0867, which is addressed at http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2005-0867 updated 08/21/2010. It lists affected kernel versions and the only version is 2.6.0. Confirmed fixed in 2.6.9.

#11 is covered by CVE-2005-0135, which is addressed at http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/

You are such a duplicitous idiot. I'm sorry to feed a troll. I'm especially sorry I went to so much trouble to feed a troll. Here goes anyway.
You say that:

NOT A SINGLE ONE IS FIXED HERE (& there's 18 OF THEM!) & I'll even QUOTE secunia on that now:

http://secunia.com/advisories/14295/

"Secunia is currently not aware of an updated kernel version addressing the vulnerabilities."

Once again, your reading comprehension and comprehension in general are simply broken. That is an advisory from nearly 6 years ago with incomplete information in the summary. If you bothered to dig deeper than the summary, the links to the CVE's on that page directly state that 9 of those 18 problems are fixed. The other 9 are also fixed, although the information directly on that Secunia page doesn't say so, but other sources do. Since you asked me to "KINDLY SHOW US PROOF THEY ARE FIXED (all 18 of them) as you stated..." (even though the responsibility is yours to prove that information that old is actually correct rather than mine to prove it wrong), here's some additional information:

#1 is covered by CVE-2005-0176, which is addressed at http://secunia.com/advisories/cve_reference/CVE-2005-0176/, which specifically says that it affects only kernel versions 2.6.9 and earlier.

#2 is covered by CVE-2005-0178, which is addressed at http://secunia.com/advisories/cve_reference/CVE-2005-0178/, which specifically says that it affects only kernel versions before 2.6.8.1.

#3 is covered by CVE-2005-0204, which is addressed at http://secunia.com/advisories/cve_reference/CVE-2005-0204/, which specifically says that it affects only kernel versions before 2.6.9

#4 is covered by CVE-2005-0177, which is addressed at http://secunia.com/advisories/cve_reference/CVE-2005-0177/, which specifically says that it affects only kernel versions before 2.6.8.1.

#5 is covered by CVE-2005-0209, which is addressed at http://secunia.com/advisories/cve_reference/CVE-2005-0209/, which specifically says that it affects only kernel version 2.6.8.1.

#6 is covered by CVE-2005-0210, which is addressed at http://secunia.com/advisories/cve_reference/CVE-2005-0210/, which specifically says that it affects only kernel version 2.6.8.1.

#7 is covered by CVE-2005-0449, which is addressed at http://secunia.com/advisories/cve_reference/CVE-2005-0449/, which specifically says that it affects only kernel versions before 2.6.8.1.

#8 is covered by CVE-2005-0839, which is addressed at http://secunia.com/advisories/cve_reference/CVE-2005-0839/, which specifically says that it affects only kernel versions before 2.6.11.

#9 is covered by CVE-2005-0937, which is addressed at http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2005-0937, updated 08/21/2010. It It lists affected kernel versions and they stop at 2.6.9.

#10 is covered by CVE-2005-0867, which is addressed at http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2005-0867 updated 08/21/2010. It lists affected kernel versions and the only version is 2.6.0. Confirmed fixed in 2.6.9.

#11 is covered by CVE-2005-0135, which is addressed at http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/