Quote:
Originally Posted by ShellShock
Who do you mean by "they"? Microsoft and Apple? Where is your evidence for this statement? With Windows 7 I get regular security patches automatically downloaded. My experience is that Microsoft is extremely security aware, and do their utmost to quickly fix any security holes that are found. This is in their own commercial interest--they have to protect their reputation at all costs.
...
Again, do you have any evidence for this statement? Who are you quoting? My personal experience with Microsoft and Windows 7 is that I get a lot of security patches for things that I didn't even know were vulnerable, which seems to match what happens in the Linux world.
I don't see why you feel you have to bash Microsoft with a lot of unsubstantiated claims, in a thread about a Linux security flaw.
|
It's self-evident. Email Microsoft or Apple and ask to see the source code for any part of their OS or commercial releases. It's closed.
Linux is open. Anyone can offer their own tweaked version, or tweak it for their own use.
You may not like the "bashing" of Microsoft (I assume that was intentional?
) but to suggest that their worlds are open is naive at best.
A few years ago, in spite of constant updates to the OS, a big-name antivirus program, a third party firewall, and an antimalware program, and regular time-consuming scans, my Windows XP computer got nailed with a truly impressive virus attack. My Linux boxes just chug along. Even the one running a version of Ubuntu that was years out of date because I didn't want to switch it from the Gnome desktop to Unity.
The Bash flaw put servers, routers and network-attached at risk, but home computers were still relatively safe. The user would still have to be conned into installing the virus.
And I got an update to bash within 24 hours of the news breaking.