From: "Geo." 

Yes it does.

If you get sqlserver as part of an application, don't you hold the vendor
of that application responsible for notification when that app requires sql
patch? How are you supposed to know if you can install the standard MS sql
patches or not? (ask Glenn about this, webboard includes sql server but
won't take MS patches)

Geo.

"Adam Flinton"  wrote in
message news:402c8256$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> 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