| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <8d79f4b51001201617p66931737pb19e2936b9839402@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 16:17:32 -0800 From: ☣ frank^2 <frank2@...49.org> To: Dan Kaminsky <dan@...para.com> Cc: Full-disclosure <full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk>, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu Subject: Re: Two MSIE 6.0/7.0 NULL pointer crashes On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Dan Kaminsky <dan@...para.com> wrote: > Seriously. I mean, just look at Linux, Firefox, and OpenOffice. > Pristine code, not a single security vulnerability between them :) > That's a red herring. His point was the public perception of the software company-- true or not-- would be hindered because Microsoft is all-encompassing. Compared to the world of open-source, the risk is distributed by the sheer virtue of software engineering being distributed amongst thousands of entities. This means that the vulnerabilities are spread across different parties, rather than having all vulnerabilities encompassed by a single party-- in this case, Microsoft. His argument was irrelevant to corporations vs. open-source being more vulnerable than one another-- it was simply a commentary on distributed risk in software engineering. -- "Did you and them get your degree from the same university of trolls? I have mistaken nothing for nothing. Fuck you." _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists