Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

More Than Half of Known Vista Bugs are Unpatched

Posted by Zonk on from the bugtracker-is-half-empty-attitude dept.

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."

8 of 257 comments (clear)

  1. Wrong title by trifish · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  2. In Other Words by camperdave · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!
  3. Vista is the youngest in the series by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    So naturally his IQ is 3 points lower than his older brother XP.

    Apparently the developers of Vista are following that trend too!

  4. I know we slag them off... by monk.e.boy · · Score: 5, Funny

    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
  5. Re:Rubbish. by Aqua_boy17 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I've got two older brothers, I don't think that makes me stupid. ;)
    It doesn't. Only doing something like posting in the wrong thread would do that.

    /chain yanking
    --
    What if the Hokey Pokey really is what it's all about?
  6. Re:Why would you ever..... by ThinkFr33ly · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well, they didn't.

    If you RTFA, you'll see that Vista's unpatched vulnerabilities are not considered "critical" because, thanks to Vista's improved security model, are virtually impossible to exploit.

    Slashdot actually managed to spin a highly positive analysis of Vista into something that suggests Vista is not only worse than XP, but Microsoft is somehow going out of its way *not* to fix it.

    Gotta love it. Slashdot is the GOP of technology news sites.

  7. Re:Why would you ever..... by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 5, Funny

    If you RTFA, you'll see that Vista's unpatched vulnerabilities are not considered "critical" because, thanks to Vista's improved security model, are virtually impossible to exploit.


    And I think you'll see that thanks to my new and improved door lock, the fact that I leave my windows unlatched is not a critical security issue.
    --
    My blog
  8. Re:Actual quote? by ThinkFr33ly · · Score: 5, Informative

    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?