Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 5th Nov 2010 13:10 UTC
Permalink for comment 448709
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/25/13 0:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 23:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Howard Fosdick on 05/24/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 14:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-01-24
http://secunia.com/advisories/product/18255/?task=statistics_2010
http://secunia.com/advisories/product/4668/?task=statistics_2010
Thanks, but from what I gather these stats don't take in to account the severity of the vulnerability? I mean remote code execution has to be the most severe and not comparable to a vulnerability that needs to be applied locally.
Edit: also the Secunia stats lists Server 2008 as having 7% of known vulnerabilities yet unpatched, while RHEL lists none.
Edited 2010-11-05 19:48 UTC