<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:osnews="http://osnews.com/rss2#">
	<channel>
		<title>OSNews: </title>
		<link>http://www.osnews.com/story/14379/Oracle_Sews_up_Multiple_Security_Holes</link>
		<description>Exploring the Future of Computing</description>
		<language>en-us</language>
		<copyright>Copyright 2001-2009, David Adams</copyright>
		<webMaster>adam+nospam@osnews.com</webMaster>
		<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2009 23:27:18 GMT</lastBuildDate>
		
		<item>
			<title>I thought Oracle was &amp;quot;Bulletproof&amp;quot;...</title>
			<link>http://osnews.com/thread?116486</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://osnews.com/thread?116486</guid>
			<description>LMFAO! Maybe not, after all... ;-p</description>
			<pubDate>Thu, 20 Apr 2006 05:09:00 GMT</pubDate>
			<author>donotreply@osnews.com (tomcat)</author>
			<category>Comments</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>RE: I thought Oracle was &amp;quot;Bulletproof&amp;quot;...</title>
			<link>http://osnews.com/thread?116540</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://osnews.com/thread?116540</guid>
			<description>&quot;Unbreakable&quot; was their ad campaign, not bulletproof.<br />
<br />
Besides, bulletproof is generally a reference to reliability, and it is damn near bulletproof.</description>
			<pubDate>Thu, 20 Apr 2006 13:07:00 GMT</pubDate>
			<author>donotreply@osnews.com (morglum666)</author>
			<category>Comments</category>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
