Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 9th Jul 2009 19:33 UTC
Post a Comment
RE: not really anything new
by looncraz on Fri 10th Jul 2009 03:06 UTC
in reply to "not really anything new"
If Microsoft was warned of this a year ago, that's not too bad.
Of course, I'm joking; if they were warned a year ago, then the problem should have been fixed 364 days ago. But look at Apple - they were warned of a particular dumb security problem four years before they fixed it. The infamous one; where Applescripts could tell setuid root programs to launch and "run a shell script" as root.
RE: One year? Not too bad!
by bousozoku on Fri 10th Jul 2009 19:26 UTC
in reply to "One year? Not too bad!"
If Microsoft was warned of this a year ago, that's not too bad.
Of course, I'm joking; if they were warned a year ago, then the problem should have been fixed 364 days ago. But look at Apple - they were warned of a particular dumb security problem four years before they fixed it. The infamous one; where Applescripts could tell setuid root programs to launch and "run a shell script" as root.
Of course, I'm joking; if they were warned a year ago, then the problem should have been fixed 364 days ago. But look at Apple - they were warned of a particular dumb security problem four years before they fixed it. The infamous one; where Applescripts could tell setuid root programs to launch and "run a shell script" as root.
Well, Apple didn't integrate Samba fixes for 2 years, right? It's surprising that they've put out security fixes for Safari 4, twice since it was released. That probably means that the iPhone version is hanging out in the open, but there are only a few million users, right?
Well, IE and WinXP make a powerful combination for looters anyway and almost always has. I can't count all the times the t.v. news was talking about identity theft as the user was videotaped using IE. The interesting thing about this one is that Win2000 isn't affected and that Vista isn't affected either.
RE[2]: One year? Not too bad!
by BlueofRainbow on Sat 11th Jul 2009 01:20 UTC
in reply to "RE: One year? Not too bad!"




