From: Adam Flinton 

Geo. wrote:

> if it's part of the distribution it counts.
>

Ah right so Turbo linux bundle DB2. Does that mean a Db2 vuln is a linux
vuln? Or is it an AIX,OS400, Win32, Solaris, VMS, Linux, OS/2,HP-UX etc
vuln ?


I can't really see IBM letting Turbo Linux having the source to DB2 &
doing the fixes themselves.

Adam

> Geo.
>
> "Adam Flinton"  wrote in message
> news:402b2d0f$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>
>>Rich wrote:
>>
>>
>>>   You don't have to look so far.  RedHat released a bulletin for a
>>>remote attack and likely exploit today.  See
>>>https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2004-051.html.
>>
>>Which is for an application called mutt not linux.
>>
>>
>>>The previous remote
>>>vulnerability, not the previous vulnerbility, was just three weeks
>>>earlier (https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2004-032.html).
>>
>>Which is for a IM app called GAIM not linux.
>>
>>
>>>There are
>>>11 security vulnerabilities in redhat linux 9 so far this year and 81
>>>since it was released just 10-1/2 months ago.  That is about 7-1/2
>>>vulnerabilities per month.  It's not that linux is not full of problems,
>>>it's that virtually no one cares.
>>>
>>
>>Hey let's start adding up all the vulnerabilities in all the windows
>>applications. Heck a mozilla on windows problem would thus be a
>>Windows/MS one as would an AOL one or a borland one etc.etc.
>>
>>Adam
>>
>>
>>>Rich
>>>
>>>
>>>    "Jeff Shultz" >>    > wrote in message
>>>    news:pan.2004.02.12.05.48.06.499952{at}shultzinfosystems.com...
>>>    On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 20:55:34 -0500, Geo. wrote:
>>>
>>>     > http://www..eeye.com/html/Research/Upcoming/index.html
>>>    http://www.eeye.com/html/Research/Upcoming/index.html>
>>>     >
>>>     > Just go look it's not an exploit it's a list of reasons why you
>
> can't
>
>>>     > trust MS to protect your computers.
>>>     >
>>>     > Geo.
>>>
>>>    There are some who would probably kill me for this.. but I'd really
>
> be
>
>>>    interested in seeing what would happen if eeye turned some of that
>>>    talent
>>>    loose on Linux.
>>>
>>>    Either we'd get a heck of a lot of fixes...or the Linux-heads would
>
> have
>
>>>    some strong evidence to back up the claim that Linux is more secure
>
> than
>
>>>    Windows.
>>
>
>

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