They have a major Windows version upgrade and they don't even audit their portable old code for such things?!
No kidding! *and* according to TFA, this has been around since Windows 3.0. So, not only has this been missed when porting from XP to Vista, but missed many, many times previously.
Symantic's Norton and Spybot being considerd competitors is quite a streach in my opinion.
Spybot was "country before country was cool" in the anti-spyware arena.
The Symantic folk have an uphill battle convincing many folk (like me) that current versions of Norton bloatware are not a plague upon RAM, CPU cycles, network communication, and Winblows in general.
So, basically he's saying this: If [hypothetical software company] finds a flaw in their software, they should keep it a secret. That way maybe nobody will figure out how to exploit it.
Does this seem flawed to anyone else?
Slashdot Mirror
They have a major Windows version upgrade and they don't even audit their portable old code for such things?!
No kidding! *and* according to TFA, this has been around since Windows 3.0. So, not only has this been missed when porting from XP to Vista, but missed many, many times previously.
Symantic's Norton and Spybot being considerd competitors is quite a streach in my opinion. Spybot was "country before country was cool" in the anti-spyware arena. The Symantic folk have an uphill battle convincing many folk (like me) that current versions of Norton bloatware are not a plague upon RAM, CPU cycles, network communication, and Winblows in general.
In a more general sence, "zero-day" means "before the first day of availability."
IE: if someone was to buy a copy of a game before it was released in stores, he would have a "zero-day" copy of the game.
Applying this concept to this topic, a zero-day flaw would be one that is being exploited before a patch for said flaw has been released.
Putting an official time on a "found bug" is impossible.
It is not "found" bug, rather "fixed" bug that is used as reference; its easy to do that.
So, basically he's saying this: If [hypothetical software company] finds a flaw in their software, they should keep it a secret. That way maybe nobody will figure out how to exploit it. Does this seem flawed to anyone else?