If Open Source was so insecure …

as opposed to proprietary MS software, then why does a bounty of US$250k be offered? And people continue to listen to MS about security?


    • And so? One is a SSL issue, one is about some servers being compromised. These are so rare and that it is not the same as the complete breakdown that the MS product space is. The fact remains that there is a class of software that exist for the sole purpose of patching up the unsecure-by-design MS product.

      • MS issued a patch 4 month ago.
        Tell me if you bash Debian or Fedora everytime some user doesn’t run the updates and gets compromised.

      • Very different issues. When you start from a foundation made of clay, no amount of patching and repatching will help. Eventually, people grow accustomed to living in a hosed environment that they cannot think that there is an alternative. Contrast that with the Linux space. The SSL issue was specific and not every one is exposed – only those who have SSL
        enabled services – and almost all of them were fixed, not rapid enough, but sufficiently quick.

Leave a Reply