From: "Rich" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0077_01C44E05.0B535470
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

   So you are now arguing against your own claims in your previous =
message in this thread.  You also misrepresent my simple position by =
editing out portions of my message from your reply and put words in my =
mouth that misrepresent what you removed.  How sad for you.

Rich

  "Adam Flinton"  wrote in message =
news:40c71d4f{at}w3.nls.net...
  Rich wrote:

  >    Do you consider all products with a word in product name in =
common to=20
  > be a single product?=20

  Gee MS obviously do coz it's an MS product, MS webpages, MS marketing=20
  etc. Are you really dissing MS to that extent?

  > I'm surprised.  This means that all products with=20
  > Linux in the name are one.

  You have in the past tried to claim products which don't have Linux in =

  the name nor which are linux only applications (e.g. GAIM) as part of=20
  linux so please at least get your position straight & consistent.

  >  Your vulnerablity numbers would be through=20
  > the roof.  Is that really how you want to spin things now?
  >

  You are at the mercy of MS marketing. If they decide (like they did =
with=20
  IE & WMP) that something should be part of Windows & covered by the=20
  Windows moniker then the fault lies with them. As for vulns going=20
  through the roof, best get onto MS marketing as they've obviously=20
  decided that following the debacle of calling everything ".Net" now=20
  everything has to live under "Windows" not me.

  Adam


  > Rich
  > =20
  >=20
  >     "Adam Flinton"      > wrote in message
  >     news:40c5bb5c$1{at}w3.nls.net...
  >     Rich wrote:
  >=20
  >      >    Adam's claim, at least what you claim is Adam's, is bogus. =

  >     You want
  >      > to count redhat vulnerbilities you count everything in the
  >     product.  If
  >      > you want to compare this count of redhat vulnerabilities to
  >     something
  >      > else that is fine too.  If you want to use this comparison to
  >     support
  >      > some conclusion, well, you better be comparing counts of =
something
  >      > appropriate for the conclusion being made.  In the case of =
Russ, not
  >      > only were his numbers inaccurate, they were misleading and =
didn't
  >      > support his conclusion.
  >      >
  >=20
  >=20
  >     Rich, you're full of it. If you want to count "windows" vulns =
then by
  >     your own reckoning you are at the mercy of not the tech people =
in MS
  >     but
  >     the marketing people e.g. hummmm let's have a look at say:
  >=20
  >     http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/sbs/default.mspx
  >=20
  >     or even:
  >=20
  >     http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/default.mspx
  >=20
  >     & gee guess what....there's lots of stuff which come under =
"Windows"
  >     e.g. the "Windows Small Business Server" & the
"Microsoft =
Windows
  >     Server
  >     System".
  >=20
  >     Would you like me to list what is included within "Windows" in =
those 2?
  >=20
  >     On the Windows Server system you can get:
  >=20
  >     "=95 Windows Server 2003
  >     =95 Application Center
  >     =95 BizTalk Server
  >     =95 Commerce Server
  >     =95 Content Management Server
  >     =95 Exchange Server
  >     =95 Host Integration Server
  >     =95 Identity Integration Server
  >     =95 ISA Server
  >     =95 Live Communications Server
  >     =95 Operations Manager
  >     =95 SharePoint Portal Server
  >     =95 Speech Server
  >     =95 SQL Server
  >     =95 Systems Management Server
  >     =95 Windows Small Business Server 2003
  >     =95 Windows Storage Server"
  >=20
  >=20
  >     & gee it looks like as part of the "Windows Small Business =
Server 2003"
  >     you get such "OS features" as SQLServer & Exchange.
  >=20
  >=20
  >     Adam
  >=20
  >=20
  >      > Rich
  >      >=20
  >      >
  >      >     "Geo."      > wrote in message
  >      >     news:40c3b7f4{at}w3.nls.net...
  >      >     Adam claimed only the Linux kernel counted when counting
  >     vulns since
  >      >     embedded
  >      >     linux (or whatever it's called) was nothing more than =
that. You
  >      >     claimed that
  >      >     whatever was included in the distribution RedHat counted =
as a
  >     RedHat
  >      >     vuln.
  >      >
  >      >     Now I'm claiming that if MS included sendmail and bind in =
Windows
  >      >     2006, any
  >      >     sendmail or bind exploits would count as security issues =
thus
  >     making
  >      >     Windows
  >      >     2006 less secure than previous versions. It appeared to =
me you
  >      >     disagreed with
  >      >     that logic, do you?
  >      >
  >      >     Geo.
  >      >
  >      >     "Rich"  wrote in message
news:40c3abe5{at}w3.nls.net...
  >      >        I have no idea what your "least common demoninator"
  >     approach is
  >      >     so I can't
  >      >     comment.  I never suggested anything with that name or to =
which I
  >      >     would apply
  >      >     that name.
  >      >
  >      >     Rich
  >      >
  >      >       "Geo."      > wrote in message
  >      >     news:40c389bf{at}w3.nls.net...
  >      >       "Rich"  wrote in message
news:40c363bd{at}w3.nls.net...
  >      >       >>   Not when trying to make apples to apples =
comparisons
  >     such as
  >      >     claiming
  >      >     one
  >      >       version is more or less secure than another version.  =
If
  >     you just
  >      >     want to
  >      >     count
  >      >       things, and you can tell from this discussion there =
isn't
  >      >     agreement on what
  >      >     or
  >      >       how to count, then including bind and sendmail would =
result in
  >      >     more things to
  >      >       be counted.<<
  >      >
  >      >       I see, so saying that one version of Linux is more =
secure
  >     than another
  >      >     version
  >      >       of Linux must then take the least common denominator
  >     approach? I'm
  >      >     sure Adam
  >      >       will be overjoyed to hear you have finally come over to =
his
  >     line of
  >      >     reasoning.
  >      >
  >      >       Geo.
  >      >
  >      >
  >      >
------=_NextPart_000_0077_01C44E05.0B535470
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








   So you
are now arguing =
against your=20
own claims in your previous message in this thread.  You=20
also misrepresent my simple position by editing out
portions = of my=20
message from your reply and put words in my mouth that misrepresent what = you=20
removed.  How sad for you.
 
Rich
 

  "Adam Flinton" <adam_NO_{at}_SPAM_softfab.com=">mailto:adam_NO_{at}_SPAM_softfab.com">adam_NO_{at}_SPAM_softfab.com=
>=20
  wrote in message news:40c71d4f{at}w3.nls.net...Ri=
ch=20
  wrote:>    Do you
consider all products with =
a word=20
  in product name in common to > be a single product?
Gee =
MS=20
  obviously do coz it's an MS product, MS webpages, MS marketing =
etc. Are=20
  you really dissing MS to that extent?> I'm
surprised.  =
This=20
  means that all products with > Linux in the name are =
one.You=20
  have in the past tried to claim products which don't have Linux in =
the=20
  name nor which are linux only applications (e.g. GAIM) as part of =
linux so=20
  please at least get your position straight & =
consistent.> =20
  Your vulnerablity numbers would be through > the
roof.  Is =
that=20
  really how you want to spin things
now?>You are at the =
mercy of=20
  MS marketing. If they decide (like they did with IE & WMP) =
that=20
  something should be part of Windows & covered by the Windows =
moniker=20
  then the fault lies with them. As for vulns going through the =
roof, best=20
  get onto MS marketing as they've obviously decided that following =
the=20
  debacle of calling everything ".Net" now everything
has to live =
under=20
  "Windows" not
me.Adam>
Rich>  =
>=20
  >     "Adam
Flinton" <adam_NO_{at}_SPAM_softfab.com=">mailto:adam_NO_{at}_SPAM_softfab.com">adam_NO_{at}_SPAM_softfab.com=
>    =20
  <mailto:adam_NO_{at}_SPAM_softfab.=">mailto:adam_NO_{at}_SPAM_softfab.com">mailto:adam_NO_{at}_SPAM_softfab.=
com>>=20
  wrote in message>     news:40c5bb5c$1{at}w3.nls.net...=
>    =20
  Rich wrote:>
>     =20
  >    Adam's claim, at least what you claim is =
Adam's, is=20
  bogus. >     You=20
  want>     
> to count redhat =
vulnerbilities=20
  you count everything in
the>     =
product. =20
  If>     
> you want to compare this =
count=20
  of redhat vulnerabilities
to>    =20
 
something>     
> else that is fine =

  too.  If you want to use this comparison=20
  to>    =20
 
support>     
> some conclusion, =
well, you=20
  better be comparing counts of =
something>     =20
  > appropriate for the conclusion being made.  In the case of =
Russ,=20
  not>     
> only were his numbers=20
  inaccurate, they were misleading and=20
 
didn't>     
> support his=20
 
conclusion.>     
>> =
>=20
  >     Rich, you're
full of it. If you want =
to count=20
  "windows" vulns then
by>     your own =
reckoning you=20
  are at the mercy of not the tech people in =
MS>    =20
  but>     the
marketing people e.g. hummmm =
let's=20
  have a look at say:>
>     http=">http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/sbs/default.mspx">http=
://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/sbs/default.mspx>=20
  >     or
even:>=20
  >     http:/" target="new">http:/=">http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/default.mspx">http:/=
/www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/default.mspx>=20
  >     & gee
guess what....there's lots =
of stuff=20
  which come under
"Windows">    
e.g. the =
"Windows=20
  Small Business Server" & the "Microsoft=20
  Windows>     =
Server>    =20
  System".>
>     Would you like
me to =
list=20
  what is included within "Windows" in those 2?>=20
  >     On the Windows
Server system you can=20
  get:>
>     "=95
Windows Server=20
  2003>     =95 Application=20
  Center>     =95 BizTalk=20
  Server>     =95 Commerce=20
  Server>     =95
Content Management=20
  Server>     =95 Exchange=20
  Server>     =95 Host
Integration=20
  Server>     =95
Identity Integration=20
  Server>     =95 ISA=20
  Server>     =95 Live
Communications=20
  Server>     =95 Operations=20
  Manager>     =95
SharePoint Portal=20
  Server>     =95 Speech=20
  Server>     =95 SQL=20
  Server>     =95
Systems Management=20
  Server>     =95
Windows Small Business =
Server=20
  2003>     =95
Windows Storage =
Server">=20
  >
>     & gee it
looks like as =
part of=20
  the "Windows Small Business Server =
2003">     you=20
  get such "OS features" as SQLServer &
Exchange.> >=20
  >    
Adam> >=20
  >      >=20
  Rich>     
>=20
  >     =20
  >>      =
>     "Geo."=20
  <georger{at}nls.net">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net
<mailto:georger{at}nls.net>>&nb=">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">mailto:georger{at}nls.net>>&nb=
sp;   =20
  <mailto:georger{at}nls.net>>">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">mailto:georger{at}nls.net>>
wrote =

  in message>      =
>    =20
  news:40c3b7f4{at}w3.nls.net...>=
     =20
  >     Adam claimed only the
Linux kernel =
counted when=20
  counting>     vulns=20
  since>      =
>    =20
  embedded>      =
>    =20
  linux (or whatever it's called) was nothing more than that.=20
  You>     
>     =
claimed=20
  that>      =
>    =20
  whatever was included in the distribution RedHat counted as=20
  a>     =
RedHat>     =20
  >     =
vuln.>     =20
  >>      =
>     Now=20
  I'm claiming that if MS included sendmail and bind in=20
  Windows>      =
>    =20
  2006, any>      =
>    =20
  sendmail or bind exploits would count as security issues=20
  thus>    =20
  making>      =
>    =20
  Windows>      =
>    =20
  2006 less secure than previous versions. It appeared to me=20
  you>     
>     =

  disagreed
with>     =20
  >     that logic, do=20
  you?>     =20
  >>      =
>    =20
  Geo.>     =20
  >>      =
>     "Rich"=20
  <{at}> wrote in message news:40c3abe5{at}w3.nls.net...>=
     =20
 
>       
I have no idea what =
your "least=20
  common
demoninator">    
approach=20
  is>     
>     =
so I=20
  can't>      =
>    =20
  comment.  I never suggested anything with that name or to which=20
  I>     
>     =
would=20
  apply>      =
>     that=20
  name.>     =20
  >>      =
>    =20
  Rich>     =20
  >>     =20
  >      
"Geo." <georger{at}nls.net">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net
<mailto:georger{at}nls.net>>&nb=">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">mailto:georger{at}nls.net>>&nb=
sp;   =20
  <mailto:georger{at}nls.net>>">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">mailto:georger{at}nls.net>>
wrote =

  in message>      =
>    =20
  news:40c389bf{at}w3.nls.net...>=
     =20
  >      
"Rich" <{at}> wrote in =
message news:40c363bd{at}w3.nls.net...>=
     =20
  >      
>>   Not when =
trying=20
  to make apples to apples
comparisons>     =
such=20
  as>     
>    =20
  claiming>      =
>    =20
  one>     =20
  >      
version is more or less =
secure than=20
  another version. 
If>     you=20
  just>      =
>     want=20
  to>     
>    =20
  count>     =20
  >      
things, and you can tell from =
this=20
  discussion there
isn't>     =20
  >     agreement on=20
  what>      =
>    =20
  or>     =20
  >       how
to count, then including =
bind and=20
  sendmail would result
in>     =20
  >     more things=20
  to>     =20
  >       be=20
 
counted.<<>     =20
  >>     =20
  >       I
see, so saying that one =
version of=20
  Linux is more
secure>     than=20
  another>      =
>    =20
  version>     =20
  >       of
Linux must then take the =
least=20
  common
denominator>    
approach?=20
  I'm>     
>     =
sure=20
  Adam>     =20
  >       will
be overjoyed to hear you =
have=20
  finally come over to
his>     line=20
  of>     
>    =20
  reasoning.>     =20
  >>     =20
  >      =20
  Geo.>     =20
  >>     =20
  >>      =
>

------=_NextPart_000_0077_01C44E05.0B535470--

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5