Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 21st Aug 2007 18:19 UTC, submitted by SEJeff
Privacy, Security, Encryption Jeff Jones has published another one of his vulnerability scorecards comparing various operating system offerings. As always, these figures just list the patched vulnerabilities over the designated period of time; they do not take into account any unfixed or undisclosed vulnerabilities. Hence, these reports are not proper measurements of security - they are just that, a tally of fixed vulnerabilities. Any conclusions like "x is more secure than y" cannot be drawn from this data set. As always, do with it as you please.
Permalink for comment 264879
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: It's not 2003 anymore
by signals on Tue 21st Aug 2007 22:22 UTC in reply to "It's not 2003 anymore"
signals
Member since:
2005-07-08

What I find amusing is that MS-haters just can't *stand* the thought of Microsoft improving its security. A reasonable person would want all OSes to be secure and to become more secure as time goes on. But MS-haters hope, wish, root, and pray for Windows to be insecure. So much so, that they close their eyes and ears at any evidence that Windows security is much better than it has been in the past. It's hilarious and pathetic at the same time.

I'm not a Windows user, but I'd love for Windows to become a more secure operating system. It would make all of our lives easier, even if we don't use Windows. (Wouldn't it be nice if there were no more botnets?)

But, the point most of the "MS-haters", as you call them, are trying to make is that this particular metric is meaningless. It is not "evidence that Windows security is much better than it has been in the past." All it tells us is that Microsoft has patched fewer vulnerabilities. Not that they had fewer discovered security problems, or that they were less severe, than the rest of the pack.

The fact that some of us are trying to point this out, does not make us Microsoft haters.

Reply Parent Score: 4