Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 15th Apr 2009 09:54 UTC
Bugs & Viruses Whenever the Conficker worm comes up here on OSNews (or any other site for that matter) there are always a number of people who point their fingers towards Redmond, stating that it's their fault Conifcker got out. While Microsoft has had some pretty lax responses to security threats in the past, it handled the whole Conficker thing perfectly, releasing a patch even before Conficker existed, and pushing it through Windows Update. In any case, this made me wonder about Linux distributions and security. What if a big security hole pops up in a Linux distribution - who will the Redmond-finger-pointing people hold responsible?
Permalink for comment 358712
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Bug fixes - Firefox 3.0.8
by bousozoku on Wed 15th Apr 2009 19:29 UTC in reply to "RE: Bug fixes - Firefox 3.0.8"
Member since:

Bug reports said; "hey, this is broken and exploitable in 3.0.7 and previous versions. We'll have 3.0.8 available for free download on Monday"

How it went down; version 3.0.8 available for download by end of day the Friday before the announced Monday release date.

Even Microsoft's last crisis patch release out of band was two weeks after the bug report was made public and "we're working on it" announcements went out.

Historically, much faster patch times on more collaborative platforms.

In the similar situation, we're still waiting on Apple to fix Safari.

Apple did fix the SSH problem within a reasonable time (for them); however, since the fix was handed to them by open source developers, they took too long to apply it. Perhaps, they customised the code for some reason.

I'd say that those Linux users who are merely users (not hardcore users or developers) will likely update quickly and there wouldn't be a Conficker-style issue hanging over the head of Linux. Those who don't update quickly are likely on a dialup connection and aren't much of a threat anyway.

Reply Parent Score: 2