From: "Rich" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_00BE_01C3F145.4D893160
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

   These vulnerabilities are part of the product.  If you want to make a =
distinction between kernel mode and user mode then you have to exclude =
most vulnerabilities attributed to Windows too including the latest one.

Rich

  "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=20
  > remote attack and likely exploit today.  See=20
  > https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2004-051.html.=20

  Which is for an application called mutt not linux.

  > The previous remote=20
  > vulnerability, not the previous vulnerbility, was just three weeks=20
  > earlier (https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2004-032.html).=20

  Which is for a IM app called GAIM not linux.

  > There are=20
  > 11 security vulnerabilities in redhat linux 9 so far this year and =
81=20
  > since it was released just 10-1/2 months ago.  That is about 7-1/2=20
  > vulnerabilities per month.  It's not that linux is not full of =
problems,=20
  > it's that virtually no one cares.
  > =20

  Hey let's start adding up all the vulnerabilities in all the windows=20
  applications. Heck a mozilla on windows problem would thus be a=20
  Windows/MS one as would an AOL one or a borland one etc.etc.

  Adam

  > Rich
  > =20
  >=20
  >     "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:
  >=20
  >      > 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.
  >=20
  >     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.
  >=20
  >     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.

------=_NextPart_000_00BE_01C3F145.4D893160
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








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

  evidence to back up the claim that Linux is more secure=20
  than>     =
Windows.

------=_NextPart_000_00BE_01C3F145.4D893160--

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