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."
announce something like that? That's not exactly the best PR for Vista. Then again Vista isn't exactly good PR for Microsoft.
In a world of acronyms, the words are the real victims.
First, the author of the submission doesn't know the difference between a bug and a vulnerability. Second, the title ought to read: "Vista Vulnerabilies are Less Serious than in XP" (and there are fewer vulnerabilities in Vista than in XP in total).
That's the reason why only half of them were fixed while in XP most of them.
I've got two older brothers, I don't think that makes me stupid. ;)
http://twitter.com/onion2k
What if the Hokey Pokey really is what it's all about?
Big deal. The VA has been trying fix VistA since 1985.
The previous comment is purposely vague and generalized, but all of the facts are completely true.
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,"
So, they're not fixing the bugs because Vista is less buggy than XP? Whatever happened to fixing it because it was broken?
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
So naturally his IQ is 3 points lower than his older brother XP.
Apparently the developers of Vista are following that trend too!
I know our hobby is slagging of microsoft, but hey, copying Linux seems to be working out for them.
Oh, damn. My carefully crafted, pro microsoft reply, slipped into the usual M$ bashing. They are such an easy target. I can't help my self. Just like women drivers. I don't mean to joke at their expense, but sometimes the jokes, they slip out. I mean, I asked my girlfriend if my indicators were working and she said 'Yes. No. Yes. No.'
An oldie but a goldie. Feel free to use that one.
monk.e.boy
Open source, flash charts
The simple fact is, there are still more XP loaded systems than Vista. Vista isn't yet a target except in areas where XP and Vista share the same flaw. ...I kinda hope it stays like that for a while too.
http://www.engadget.com/2007/06/22/report-vista-mo re-secure-than-os-x-and-linux/
An article on engadget that is pointing to the EXACT same data...yet the title there most certainly provides a seriously different outlook does it not? I do not blame anyone, however, as if I had seen an ACTUAL nuetral title along the lines of 'microsoft employee posts dubious data of questionable usefulness to anyone except PR departments' I would without doubt have just scrolled on...
Then read the actual report: http://www.csoonline.com/pdf/6_Month_Vista_Vuln_Re port.pdf
It sounds bad because the person who posted it to Slashdot, and Slashdot's editors, want it to sounds bad. Are you new here or something?
Jones argued that Vista had a lower number of vulnerabilities than competitive operating system products such as Red Hat Enterprise Linux and Mac OS X.
Microsoft has acknowledged that they include secret undocumented patches in hotfixes, patches that would count against their "score" if they were required to count them... open source software doesn't have the luxury of hiding their dirty laundry like that. And it's not just Linux that suffers from that "disadvantage", OS X has an awful lot of open-source components, and many of Apple's updates have been patches rolled in from them.
Microsoft's gaming the system here. Statements like this should be granted no credibility.
First sentence is correct. Author didn't distinguish bug/vulernability.
The second sentence, while double-plus-good Microsoft PR speak, is critically flawed reasoning.
If the parent said "Known Vista vulnerabilities..." I would agree, but that still glides over many fundamental liabilities that Microsoft products push onto the customer like:
1. The concept of security in Microsoft products means protect Microsoft's intellectual property.
2. No one can reasonably predict the scope or scale of Microsoft vulnerabilities.
3. Given Microsoft's history of producing "secure" operating systems, it is reasonable to assume there is no evidence end-user security features makes it through to the end product. Note carefully, Microsoft has *very* talented programmers who can code securely after all their monopoly status affords them this luxury. I'm saying that their work doesn't make it all the way through the management gauntlet. UAC is a perfect example. It is not a security boundary. http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=175
The Vista train will pull out of the station eventually because Microsoft's monopoly makes this a sure thing. As every other Microsoft OS has shown, there will be critical vulnerability surprises. It's a matter of when, not if.
Got Trader Joe's? friendwich.com RSS feeds work now!
The article I read trashed M$'s sorry analysis and told me to expect more of the same from Vista as we've seen with every other M$ OS:
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
the fact that your Macs have never been compromised (that you know of) to the their actual security. This is an invalid equation.
The fact that only M$ machines get screwed and die along with your work is a good reason to avoid the platform.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Let's dig up one of the old /. favourites:
"The only reason XP is the target of so many viruses is because it is so widely used! If Vista was as popular as Windows XP, there would be just as many viruses written for those platforms!"
(firmly tongue in cheek, I'm aware that Vista's UAC is still a pale imitation of a real security model).
My guess is that it may be harder to fix things in Vista without breaking something else (like DRM functions) ...
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
You sir should think before you post.
You might want to follow your own advice.
That goes for you too!
You're committing a logical fallacy in your post. You equate the fact that your Macs have never been compromised (that you know of) to the their actual security. This is an invalid equation.
I don't think this qualifies as an "invalid equation." Maybe if he was trying to say that a Mac is a PC, or that OSX is Vista, that would be an invalid equation.
What you are thinking of sounds much more like the fallacy of "affirming the consequent." Specifically:
If my OS is secure, then it will never be hacked.
My OS has never been hacked.
Therefore, my OS is secure.
Though the first premise may or may not be weak on its own grounds, the argument is formally invalid. In your post you even go on to demonstrate cases in which an insecure OS may never be hacked. This is the traditional means of demonstrating the formaly invalidity of the fallacy of "affirming the consequent."
Sounds like you had the right idea, but you mis-identified the fallacy in question. If you are going to serve as a logician, doing it properly will avoid some embarrassment.