On Wed, Apr 14, 2004 at 07:10:20AM -0700, Edward W. Ray wrote: > > I use Linux, OpenBSD and Windows in my enterprise. Linux and OpenBSD use > the "1 patch for 1 vulnerability" rule. Seems to me that MS is bunching > their patches together in order to make it seem on the surface that Windows > has less patches than other Oses, therefore it is more secure. CIOs, take > note. It's usually one patch per program package in my experience. I've personally submitted single patches to fix multiple copies of many vulnerabilities in programs I've found vulns in. Vulns are never alone -- they come with friends. Security Team Leader Source Mage GNU/Linux, Seth P.S. I don't think any consulting company doing a study worth its salt will be fooled by that since it's so common. There are many transparent and unannounced security fixes that happen during regular upgrade cycles in many products, closed and open source, so the significance of these studies is inherently weak unless some attempt is made to estimate the error that this fact introduces. -- Seth Alan Woolley <seth at positivism.org>, SPAM/UCE is unauthorized Key id EF10E21A = 36AD 8A92 8499 8439 E6A8 3724 D437 AF5D EF10 E21A http://smgl.positivism.org:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xEF10E21A
Attachment:
pgp00034.pgp
Description: PGP signature