Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 2nd Jul 2009 12:19 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 371340
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
They had two vulnerabilities in WebKit that allowed that one guy to win the Pwn2Own contest two years in a row. That's a HUGE number of vulnerabilities, especially compared to historically secure platforms like Internet Explorer.
In all seriousness, the WebKit team is pretty good at applying patches that people send in, but they have very little control over Safari's release schedule, since that depends more on Safari's proprietary interface and Apple's marketing schemes.
Any open source browser effort that uses WebKit is free to perform its own security vetting.
They had two vulnerabilities in WebKit that allowed that one guy to win the Pwn2Own contest two years in a row. That's a HUGE number of vulnerabilities, especially compared to historically secure platforms like Internet Explorer.
In all seriousness, the WebKit team is pretty good at applying patches that people send in, but they have very little control over Safari's release schedule, since that depends more on Safari's proprietary interface and Apple's marketing schemes.
Any open source browser effort that uses WebKit is free to perform its own security vetting.
In all seriousness, the WebKit team is pretty good at applying patches that people send in, but they have very little control over Safari's release schedule, since that depends more on Safari's proprietary interface and Apple's marketing schemes.
Any open source browser effort that uses WebKit is free to perform its own security vetting.
You better include Opera, Firefox, IE7/8 and everyone else in those exploits.






Member since:
2005-11-09
Care to enumerate some of that track record?