Slashdot Mirror
More Than Half of Known Vista Bugs are Unpatched
MsManhattan writes "Microsoft security executive Jeff Jones has disclosed that in the first six months of Vista's release, the company has patched fewer than half of the operating system's known bugs. Microsoft has fixed only 12 of 27 reported Vista vulnerabilities whereas it patched 36 of 39 known bugs in Windows XP in the first six months following its release. Jones says that's because "Windows Vista continues to show a trend of fewer total and fewer high-severity vulnerabilities at the six month mark compared to ... Windows XP," but he did not address the 15 unpatched flaws."
so I might as well as say it, use linux.
The little girl who got paid to write this article needs to keep doing whatever physical favors she is performing for the publisher to keep her job. Obviously, writing factual articles is not her cup of tea.
Vulnerabilities aren't bugs and bugs don't always get fixed. Note how nothing in her FUD-laden drivel there's nothing about anything actually impacting her. It's all about the things that don't affect her, she doesn't understand, and shouldn't be spewing forth on the internet in paid fashion.
Congrats should go out to MSFT that their new OS is more secure than their previous OS.
Yeah, according to Microsoft. Please swallow only with a humongous grain of salt.
For all we know there can be critical vulnerabilities which Microsoft discovered but simply hasn't disclosed.
Developers: We can use your help.
Vista has something called a "Security Development Lifecycle".
Where there is "Life" there is death. Talking about a "Lifecycle" gives the impression that Microsoft's real interest is death. I'm guessing it is a mostly management policy to give a shorter "life" to Windows Vista than customers want.
Bill Gates is software's Dr. Death. It doesn't matter what the customer wants; Bill Gates, the richest man in the world, wants more money, and will drag everyone through his neurosis.
Sometimes it has seemed to me that Microsoft is not really primarily a software company, but primarily an abuse company that accomplishes abuse through software.
This comment has a "Comment Development Lifecycle". Management policy is that you cannot read it more than an hour after it is posted. However, since I'm a cooperative person, and not adversarial, and since I don't have a virtual monopoly, you are welcome to read it any time you like.
Also, when this comment is posted, it will have the title "Security Development Lifecycle???" However, after it has been posted for a time to be determined by management, the title will be changed in an attempt to make people think that it is an entirely new comment, instead of merely a new version.
That's quite a statement. I don't have evidence supporting anything either way but I still have a hard time swallowing that one given my past experiences.
;)
Numbers are out there... Dare I suggest, "Open up and say ahh."