Microsoft has released 13 bulletins, covering 26 vulnerabilities, as part of a bumper Patch Tuesday. All supported versions of Windows will need patching, though Vista and Win 7 (three critical updates) are less exposed than XP and Windows 2000 shops (five critical fixes). Three of the bulletins are particularly severe and …
Time to get a better O/S
AmigaOS doesn't have any security updates this month.
Hey, I'm just sayin'...
Works better too...
That hardware windowing using display lists never gives corrupted windows like Windows does...
Wish I still had my amigas...
@ Time to get a better OS
Neither does RISC OS (which is still being actively developed, hey) - so what's your point?
@ Time to get a better OS
So is AmigaOS.
@ @ Time to get a better OS
Yes, I know AmigaOS is - but you probably didn't know that RISC OS was. I wasn't trying to come over all superior, I didn't honestly think anybody (except the small cliquish sect who actually perform the updates) would have been aware. Ah, RISC OS. A new lease of life on the Beagleboard? Who knows.
They've rewritten TCP/IP? One of the oldest technologies on the Internet? Didn't they have that pretty much finished before?
No wonder Redmond produces such garbage - they keep rewriting it and starting the whole security-hole-fixing process all over again.
Bilgepipe by name, ...
If you'd bothered to read the article before engaging commentard mode, you would have seen that as a result of the new TCP/IP stack Win7 and 2008/R2 are not vulnerable to some exploits affecting earlier versions, so perhaps there was some point to the changes after all. And it's not as though TCP/IP has been frozen for the last couple of decades, judging by the rate at which new RFCs are appearing - I'm pretty sure that you'll find most Linux distros incorporate regular enhancements to this software.
And the prize for the most appropriate handle goes to ...
Hotfixes fixing hotfixes
What I find more alarming than the number of patches being released is that there are several patches which replace previous hotfixes. I wonder whether the flaws were present in the original unpatched version of the code and went unnoticed when MS first patched it, or were these new vulnerabilities introduced as a result of the previously-released patches?
Also, I note that in the Microsoft announcements for each patch, they describe those vulnerabilities that were privately reported as being 'responsibly disclosed' - presumably anyone who goes public before the patch is released (not necessarily without having informed the vendor) is being irresponsible according to Microsoft.
Does anyone really believe that the Baddies out there are incapable of finding vulns themselves and that they all sit around waiting for Metasploit to release an exploit before targeting their victims? I seem to remember that Microsoft were aware of the IE6 Google Hack vulnerability 4 months prior to the rest of us (minus the Baddies) being aware of its existence.
Stop with this Holier than thou attitude
Just because your OS's patches aren't publicized, doesn't mean they fix are any less severe.
RE: Stop with this Holier than thou attitude
Most commercial OS publicise their patches.
Most commercial OS are FAR more secure than Winblows and NEED less patches.
Blue Screen of Death
Looks like this patch fixes lots of problems but causes another - The Blue Screen Of Death!
I don't recall any blue screens of death on my Amiga!
Re : Blue Screen of Death
You may remember "Guru Meditation" - I certainly do from my A1000
- Put down that Oracle database patch: It could cost $23,000 per CPU
- The END of the FONDLESLAB KINGS? Apple and Samsung have reason to FEAR
- Pics It's Google HQ - the British one: Reg man snaps covert shots INSIDE London offices
- DAYS from end of life as we know it: Boffins tell of solar storm near-miss
- Bose decides today IS F*** With Dre Day: Beats sued in patent spat