Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Apple and Microsoft Release Critical Patches

Soulskill posted more than 5 years ago | from the that-time-of-the-month dept.

Security 194

SkiifGeek writes "Both Microsoft and Apple have released major security updates in the last 24 hours. Microsoft's single update (MS09-017) addresses fourteen distinct vulnerabilities across all supported versions of PowerPoint, but it isn't the number of patched vulnerabilities that is causing trouble. Instead, the decision to release the patch for Windows versions while OS X and Works versions remain vulnerable to the same remote code execution risks (including one that is currently being exploited) hasn't gone down well with some people. Microsoft have given various reasons why this is the case, but this mega-update-in-a-patch is still interesting for other reasons. Meanwhile, Apple has updated OS X 10.5 to 10.5.7 as part of the 2009-002 Security Update, as well as a cumulative update for Safari 3 and the Public Beta for 4. As well as addressing numerous significant security risks, the 10.5.7 update provides a number of stability and capability enhancements and incorporates the Safari 3 update patch. Probably the most surprising element of the Apple update is the overall size of it; 442MB for the point update, and 729MB for the ComboUpdate."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Now with even MORE surprising! (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27937307)

> Probably the most surprising element of the
> Apple update is the overall size of it

Actually, the MOST surprising thing is that Apple didn't charge $150 for it!

Re:Now with even MORE surprising! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27937355)

No it's not because it's an update to an already released product and not a product on its own.

Re:Now with even MORE surprising! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27938005)

apple sux, get over yourself.

Re:Now with even MORE surprising! (0)

bondsbw (888959) | more than 5 years ago | (#27937485)

Actually, the MOST surprising thing is that your mom paid $150 for it.

* BOOM, Roasted! *

Re:Now with even MORE surprising! (0)

martin_henry (1032656) | more than 5 years ago | (#27938685)

Probably the most surprising element ... is the overall size of it

That's what she said!

But (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27937311)

I have a feeling that the microsoft patch is a little more serious.

I agree, (And have reasons) (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27937615)

The MS patch is going to be more serious for several reasons. One is the fact that people will actually exploit MS's holes with large automated botnets.

But the other reason, is while Apple may have patched Apache, BIND, the kitchen sink and my left sock, most of those ARE NOT enabled by default.

Using some super-rough numbers, lets suppose The OSX install base is 10%
Suppose even 5% have Apple or BIND, etc enabled. Heck, lets suppose 5% have EVERYTHING enabled....

and if 1 in 5 of those machines actually has a public IP or forwarded ports,

then you're taking something like 1 in 1000 computers, is a mac, with an exploitable version of bind/apache/whathaveyou with a public IP.

vs what? 3 out of 5 windows users that don't know how to tell if their machine is part of a botnet?

YES, the OSX patch and security updates are good, welcome improvements, but the sad reality is that windows 98/ME/2000/XP/Vista are all bigger targets and a bigger security threat right now.

Why is it that network providers are working their hardest to stop bittorrent, yet are perfectly willing to let the viruses, the botnets, the port scans, and untold mountains of spam propagate on their networks.

Re:I agree, (And have reasons) (3, Interesting)

ivucica (1001089) | more than 5 years ago | (#27938249)

Simple. Botnets don't generate all that great loads of upload traffic like BitTorrent does. Sure, the outgoing mails is irritating, but it's not exactly completely continuous and it's not exactly of such concentrated volume.

Re:I agree, (And have reasons) (2, Interesting)

twidarkling (1537077) | more than 5 years ago | (#27938259)

Why is it that network providers are working their hardest to stop bittorrent, yet are perfectly willing to let the viruses, the botnets, the port scans, and untold mountains of spam propagate on their networks.

Was that rhetorical? Because we know why. The spammers pay for connections, and the *AA's pay them to crack down on bittorrent. No one's paying them to stop botnets.

Re:I agree, (And have reasons) (5, Insightful)

inject_hotmail.com (843637) | more than 5 years ago | (#27938327)

vs what? 3 out of 5 windows users that don't know how to tell if their machine is part of a botnet?

Nice troll. I wonder how many of the Apple users can tell?

Actually, I don't. My experience (which is 2 decades in the field) is the Apple users are just as clueless as to the operation of their computer as PC users.

Being 0wn3d has nothing to do with the platform, it's about the behavior/knowledge/understanding of the user.

Re:I agree, (And have reasons) (-1, Troll)

hobbit (5915) | more than 5 years ago | (#27938805)

Being 0wn3d has nothing to do with the platform

Two decades in the field has left you with the impression that all platforms are equally secure? You must not have been paying much attention.

Re:I agree, (And have reasons) (4, Insightful)

tsa (15680) | more than 5 years ago | (#27938875)

You also didn't pay much attention. The parent was talking about the ability of the users of certain operating systems to recognize the fact that their computer was part of a botnet. That has nothing to do with the security of the OS.

numbers wrong (1)

goombah99 (560566) | more than 5 years ago | (#27938369)

I just downloaded the patch. it's 286Mb. Which is still a lot but it's not 729Mb.

Re:numbers wrong (3, Funny)

sgt scrub (869860) | more than 5 years ago | (#27938827)

Wow! It is amazing how those numbers look like the minimal and maximum iso install downloads for a Linux distro.

Re:I agree, (And have reasons) (1)

mizzouxc (985151) | more than 5 years ago | (#27938625)

Duh! All torrents are illegal, don't you know this?

(I was actually told this by a CIO for a large unnamed company that I don't work for when having a discussion at the airport)

Re:I agree, (And have reasons) (1)

sgt scrub (869860) | more than 5 years ago | (#27938799)

No doubt! The volume of virus/botnet traffic transferred per connection isn't significant. The number of connections is. If you run 1M of traffic through a cisco router, so you can watch a monitor, using normal sized packets (mtu 1500) the amount of strain on the router will be minimal. Then run 1M of traffic through the router where every packet is a new packet (ack flood) or connection attempt (syn flood). The strain won't kill the router but you will see a big difference in processor usage.

Re:I agree, (And have reasons) (2, Informative)

bds1986 (1268378) | more than 5 years ago | (#27938955)

Only if the router is running PAT, and has to keep track of sessions. Otherwise it's not even looking at what type of packet is being received, just the source and destination networks. For a home user it might be a problem, but most ISP networks aren't using PAT, so it's not an issue.

I have a feeling (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27937317)

I have a feeling that mac fags are delusional homos.

Could it be? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27937327)

This is totally going to end up as like the 15th post instead of first post.... dang.

Slashdot said patch (4, Funny)

olddotter (638430) | more than 5 years ago | (#27937337)

If a patch is important enough to be on Slashdot I apply it? (well not really) Keep up the work /. and remember the internet depends on you.

Re:Slashdot said patch (1)

BlueKitties (1541613) | more than 5 years ago | (#27937457)

http:///..org [..org] , making clear sense since of things other than URLs since a long time ago.

orly? (5, Interesting)

gardyloo (512791) | more than 5 years ago | (#27937345)

[...] but this mega-update-in-a-patch is still interesting for other reasons.

Why not just say what those reasons are? I'd like to know, because I followed the link which suggests it'll tell me what the reasons are, and it's---so far as I can tell---only interesting because it contains so little detail. Please be careful with futzing about with infinite regress like that. Eventually you're going to divide by zero, and then we're all fucked.

Re:orly? (5, Interesting)

ShadowRangerRIT (1301549) | more than 5 years ago | (#27937491)

I suspect there were two reasons for the delay in a Mac patch (I base this on previous experience as an MS programmer):
  1. Macs in general have a slightly lower priority for development, and less developers. Note the release years; each version of Office for the Mac is released a year behind the Windows equivalent. If they held off until the Mac team was ready to release, they'd leave Windows vulnerable longer.
  2. Pre-Vista versions of Windows are more vulnerable to the exploits than a Mac is. Both Macs and Vista don't grant programs admin privileges by default, so the damage is limited. On XP and earlier OSes, the exploits could root the system on a default home user installation. So leaving Windows vulnerable longer would mean disproportionate damage to pre-Vista Windows users.

Of course, there may be a small bit of reason 3: "Windows customers are more important" in there, but it's a justifiable decision on points 1 and 2 alone.

Re:orly? (2, Interesting)

iphayd (170761) | more than 5 years ago | (#27937799)

Point #1 is false.

Microsoft alternates paid updates to Office between years for Macintosh and Windows. There are features in each version that may not be in the other, so the statement that the Mac version is delayed is false. The Mac version lags behind the Windows one year, then the same happens to the Windows version behind the Mac the next.

Also, how is reason 3 justifiable based on 1 and 2? I would see this as the other way around (if point 1 were true.) Reason 3 dictates that Windows gets precedence, which would make sense for Microsoft to do, considering that it is their OS.

Re:orly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27937889)

I'm pretty sure he meant they're decision is justifiable on points 1 and 2, and that reason 3, hinted at in the summary, was unnecessary for their roll out.

Re:orly? (1)

ShadowRangerRIT (1301549) | more than 5 years ago | (#27937905)

Yes, they do add features in between, but the development work for each Windows version is reused by the Mac team. Most Microsoft products separate view from control; the control is under constant development, with stabilized branches being spun off for release. The view is developed independently for different OSes. I oversimplified, but it's not wrong either.

You misread my post with regard to point 3. "it's justifiable" refers to the decision to release for Windows first. That decision is justifiable on 1 and 2 alone. I wasn't saying points 1 and 2 justify 3.

Re:orly? (3, Interesting)

mcmaddog (732436) | more than 5 years ago | (#27938739)

Yes, they do add features in between, but the development work for each Windows version is reused by the Mac team.

I was under the impression that the last (and first) time MS used the same code base for both Mac and Windows versions of MS Word was Word 6.0. However, because of the massive outcry by the Mac users because Word 6 did not feel like a Mac application and decided to keep using Word 5.x Microsoft created the Macintosh Business Unit for developing future versions. Also, new features are often introduced in the Mac versions first, like self healing in Office 98, because the risks of pissing off a large user base are reduced, and then they later show up in the next version for Windows.

Re:orly? (1)

jurv!s (688306) | more than 5 years ago | (#27937869)

Wait- I thought the Windows version was 3 years behind the Mac version.

Re:orly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27938283)

Wait- I thought the Windows version was 3 years behind the Mac version.

You are thinking of games. They come out for OSX three years after they come out on Windows. No, I'm just kidding: Everyone knows games don't come out for OSX.

Re:orly? (1)

LoudMusic (199347) | more than 5 years ago | (#27937893)

Macs in general have a slightly lower priority for development, and less developers. Note the release years; each version of Office for the Mac is released a year behind the Windows equivalent. If they held off until the Mac team was ready to release, they'd leave Windows vulnerable longer.

I think the point is not that the Windows version wait on the Mac version but that the Mac version be worked on just as hard as the Windows version, in reference to fixing vulnerabilities.

Legal Copy (1)

Shifty Jim (862102) | more than 5 years ago | (#27937347)

Do you have any idea how much legal copy [youtube.com] would be involved to release concurrent patches for all those vulnerabilities? The mere thought boggles the mind.

Apple, Microsoft and Ninnle Labs (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27937351)

It has come to my attention that the entire Linux community is a hotbed of so called 'alternative sexuality,' which includes anything from hedonistic orgies to homosexuality to pedophilia.

What better way of demonstrating this than by looking at the hidden messages contained within the names of some of Linux's most outspoken advocates:

  • Linus Torvalds [microsoft.com] is an anagram of slit anus or VD 'L,' clearly referring to himself by the first initial.
  • Richard M. Stallman [geocities.com] , spokespervert for the Gaysex's Not Unusual 'movement' is an anagram of mans cram thrill ad.
  • Alan Cox [microsoft.com] is barely an anagram of anal cox which is just so filthy and unchristian it unnerves me.

I'm sure that Eric S. Raymond, composer of the satanic homosexual [goatse.fr] propaganda diatribe The Cathedral and the Bizarre, is probably an anagram of something queer, but we don't need to look that far as we know he's always shoving a gun up some poor little boy's rectum. Update: Eric S. Raymond is actually an anagram for secondary rim and cord in my arse. It just goes to show you that he is indeed queer.

Update the Second: It is also documented that Evil Sicko Gaymond is responsible for a nauseating piece of code called Fetchmail [microsoft.com] , which is obviously sinister sodomite slang for 'Felch Male' -- a disgusting practise. For those not in the know, 'felching' is the act performed by two perverts wherein one sucks their own post-coital ejaculate out of the other's rectum. In fact, it appears that the dirty Linux faggots set out to undermine the good Republican institution of e-mail, turning it into 'e-male.'

As far as Richard 'Master' Stallman goes, that filthy fudge-packer was actually quoted [salon.com] on leftist commie propaganda site Salon.com as saying the following: 'I've been resistant to the pressure to conform in any circumstance,' he says. 'It's about being able to question conventional wisdom,' he asserts. 'I believe in love, but not monogamy,' he says plainly.

And this isn't a made up troll bullshit either! He actually stated this tripe, which makes it obvious that he is trying to politely say that he's a flaming homo [comp-u-geek.net] slut [rotten.com] !

Speaking about 'flaming,' who better to point out as a filthy chutney ferret than Slashdot's very own self-confessed pederast Jon Katz. Although an obvious deviant anagram cannot be found from his name, he has already confessed, nay boasted of the homosexual [goatse.fr] perversion of corrupting the innocence of young children [slashdot.org] . To quote from the article linked:

'I've got a rare kidney disease,' I told her. 'I have to go to the bathroom a lot. You can come with me if you want, but it takes a while. Is that okay with you? Do you want a note from my doctor?'

Is this why you were touching your penis [rotten.com] in the cinema, Jon? And letting the other boys touch it too?

We should also point out that Jon Katz refers to himself as 'Slashdot's resident Gasbag.' Is there any more doubt? For those fortunate few who aren't aware of the list of homosexual [goatse.fr] terminology found inside the Linux 'Sauce Code,' a 'Gasbag' is a pervert who gains sexual gratification from having a thin straw inserted into his urethra (or to use the common parlance, 'piss-pipe'), then his homosexual [goatse.fr] lover blows firmly down the straw to inflate his scrotum. This is, of course, when he's not busy violating the dignity and copyright of posters to Slashdot by gathering together their postings and publishing them en masse to further his twisted and manipulative journalistic agenda.

Sick, disgusting antichristian perverts, the lot of them.

In addition, many of the Linux distributions (a 'distribution' is the most common way to spread the faggots' wares) are run by faggot groups. The Slackware [redhat.com] distro is named after the 'Slack-wear' fags wear to allow easy access to the anus for sexual purposes. Furthermore, Slackware is a close anagram of claw arse, a reference to the homosexual [goatse.fr] practise of anal fisting. The Mandrake [slackware.com] product is run by a group of French faggot satanists, and is named after the faggot nickname for the vibrator. It was also chosen because it is an anagram for dark amen and ram naked, which is what they do.

Another 'distro,' (abbrieviated as such because it sounds a bit like 'Disco,' which is where homosexuals [goatse.fr] preyed on young boys in the 1970s), is Debian, [mandrake.com] an anagram of in a bed, which could be considered innocent enough (after all, a bed is both where we sleep and pray), until we realise what other names Debian uses to describe their foul wares. 'Woody' is obvious enough, being a term for the erect male penis [rotten.com] , glistening with pre-cum. But far sicker is the phrase 'Frozen Potato' that they use. This filthy term, again found in the secret homosexual [goatse.fr] 'Sauce Code,' refers to the solo homosexual [goatse.fr] practice of defecating into a clear polythene bag, shaping the turd into a crude approximation of the male phallus, then leaving it in the freezer overnight until it becomes solid. The practitioner then proceeds to push the frozen 'potato' up his own rectum, squeezing it in and out until his tight young balls erupt in a screaming orgasm.

And Red Hat [debian.org] is secret homo [comp-u-geek.net] slang for the tip of a penis [rotten.com] that is soaked in blood from a freshly violated underage ringpiece.

The fags have even invented special tools to aid their faggotry! For example, the 'supermount' tool was devised to allow deeper penetration, which is good for fags because it gives more pressure on the prostate gland. 'Automount' is used, on the other hand, because Linux users are all fat and gay, and need to mount each other [comp-u-geek.net] automatically.

The depths of their depravity can be seen in their use of 'mount points.' These are, plainly speaking, the different points of penetration. The main one is obviously/anus, but there are others. Militant fags even say 'there is no/opt mount point' because for these dirty perverts faggotry is not optional but a way of life.

More evidence is in the fact that Linux users say how much they love `man`, even going so far as to say that all new Linux users (who are in fact just innocent heterosexuals indoctrinated by the gay propaganda) should try out `man`. In no other system do users boast of their frequent recourse to a man.

Other areas of the system also show Linux's inherit gayness. For example, people are often told of the 'FAQ,' but how many innocent heterosexual Windows [amiga.com] users know what this actually means. The answer is shocking: Faggot Anal Quest: the voyage of discovery for newly converted fags!

Even the title 'Slashdot [geekizoid.com] ' originally referred to a homosexual [goatse.fr] practice. Slashdot [kuro5hin.org] of course refers to the popular gay practice of blood-letting. The Slashbots, of course are those super-zealous homosexuals [goatse.fr] who take this perversion to its extreme by ripping open their anuses, as seen on the site most popular with Slashdot users, the depraved work of Satan, http://www.eff.org/ [eff.org] .

The editors of Slashdot [slashduh.org] also have homosexual [goatse.fr] names: 'Hemos' is obvious in itself, being one vowel away from 'Homos.' But even more sickening is 'Commander Taco' which sounds a bit like 'Commode in Taco,' filthy gay slang for a pair of spreadeagled buttocks that are caked with excrement [pboy.com] . (The best form of lubrication, they insist.) Sometimes, these 'Taco Commodes' have special 'Salsa Sauce' (blood from a ruptured rectum) and 'Cheese' (rancid flakes of penis [rotten.com] discharge) toppings. And to make it even worse, Slashdot [notslashdot.org] runs on Apache!

The Apache [microsoft.com] server, whose use among fags is as prevalent as AIDS, is named after homosexual [goatse.fr] activity -- as everyone knows, popular faggot band, the Village People, featured an Apache Indian, and it is for him that this gay program is named.

And that's not forgetting the use of patches in the Linux fag world -- patches are used to make the anus accessible for repeated anal sex even after its rupture by a session of fisting.

To summarise: Linux is gay. 'Slash -- Dot' is the graphical description of the space between a young boy's scrotum and anus. And BeOS [apple.com] is for hermaphrodites and disabled 'stumpers.'

FEEDBACK

What worries me is how much you know about what gay people do. I'm scared I actually read this whole thing. I think this post is a good example of the negative effects of Internet usage on people. This person obviously has no social life anymore and had to result to writing something as stupid as this. And actually take the time to do it too. Although... I think it was satire.. blah.. it's early. -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

Well, the only reason I know all about this is because I had the misfortune to read the Linux 'Sauce code' once. Although publicised as the computer code needed to get Linux up and running on a computer (and haven't you always been worried about the phrase 'Monolithic Kernel'?), this foul document is actually a detailed and graphic description of every conceivable degrading perversion known to the human race, as well as a few of the major animal species. It has shocked and disturbed me, to the point of needing to shock and disturb the common man to warn them of the impending homo [comp-u-geek.net] -calypse which threatens to engulf our planet.

You must work for the government. Trying to post the most obscene stuff in hopes that slashdot won't be able to continue or something, due to legal woes. If i ever see your ugly face, i'm going to stick my fireplace poker up your ass, after it's nice and hot, to weld shut that nasty gaping hole of yours. -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

Doesn't it give you a hard-on to imagine your thick strong poker ramming it's way up my most sacred of sphincters? You're beyond help, my friend, as the only thing you can imagine is the foul penetrative violation of another man. Are you sure you're not Eric Raymond? The government, being populated by limp-wristed liberals, could never stem the sickening tide of homosexual [goatse.fr] child molesting Linux advocacy. Hell, they've given NAMBLA free reign for years!

you really should post this logged in. i wish i could remember jebus's password, cuz i'd give it to you. -- mighty jebus [slashdot.org] , Slashdot

Thank you for your kind words of support. However, this document shall only ever be posted anonymously. This is because the 'Open Sauce' movement is a sham, proposing homoerotic cults of hero worshipping in the name of freedom. I speak for the common man. For any man who prefers the warm, enveloping velvet folds of a woman's vagina [bodysnatchers.co.uk] to the tight puckered ringpiece of a child. These men, being common, decent folk, don't have a say in the political hypocrisy that is Slashdot culture. I am the unknown liberator [hitler.org] .

ROLF LAMO i hate linux FAGGOTS -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

We shouldn't hate them, we should pity them for the misguided fools they are... Fanatical Linux zeal-outs need to be herded into camps for re-education and subsequent rehabilitation into normal heterosexual society. This re-education shall be achieved by forcing them to watch repeats of Baywatch until the very mention of Pamela Anderson [rotten.com] causes them to fill their pants with healthy heterosexual jism [zillabunny.com] .

Actually, that's not at all how scrotal inflation works. I understand it involves injecting sterile saline solution into the scrotum. I've never tried this, but you can read how to do it safely in case you're interested. (Before you moderate this down, ask yourself honestly -- who are the real crazies -- people who do scrotal inflation, or people who pay $1000+ for a game console?) -- double_h [slashdot.org] , Slashdot

Well, it just goes to show that even the holy Linux 'sauce code' is riddled with bugs that need fixing. (The irony of Jon Katz not even being able to inflate his scrotum correctly has not been lost on me.) The Linux pervert elite already acknowledge this, with their queer slogan: 'Given enough arms, all rectums are shallow.' And anyway, the PS2 [xbox.com] sucks major cock and isn't worth the money. Intellivision forever!

dude did u used to post on msnbc's nt bulletin board now that u are doing anti-gay posts u also need to start in with anti-black stuff too c u in church -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

For one thing, whilst Linux is a cavalcade of queer propaganda masquerading as the future of computing, NT [linux.com] is used by people who think nothing better of encasing their genitals in quick setting plaster then going to see a really dirty porno film, enjoying the restriction enforced onto them. Remember, a wasted arousal is a sin in the eyes of the Catholic church [atheism.org] . Clearly, the only god-fearing Christian operating system in existence is CP/M -- The Christian Program Monitor. All computer users should immediately ask their local pastor to install this fine OS onto their systems. It is the only route to salvation.

Secondly, this message is for every man. Computers know no colour. Not only that, but one of the finest websites in the world is maintained by a Black Man [stileproject.com] . Now fuck off you racist donkey felcher.

And don't forget that slashdot was written in Perl, which is just too close to 'Pearl Necklace' for comfort.... oh wait; that's something all you heterosexuals do.... I can't help but wonder how much faster the trolls could do First-Posts on this site if it were redone in PHP... I could hand-type dynamic HTML pages faster than Perl can do them. -- phee [slashdot.org] , Slashdot

Although there is nothing unholy about the fine heterosexual act of ejaculating between a woman's breasts, squirting one's load up towards her neck and chin area, it should be noted that Perl [python.org] (standing for Pansies Entering Rectums Locally) is also close to 'Pearl Monocle,' 'Pearl Nosering,' and the ubiquitous 'Pearl Enema.'

One scary thing about Perl [sun.com] is that it contains hidden homosexual [goatse.fr] messages. Take the following code: LWP::Simple -- It looks innocuous enough, doesn't it? But look at the line closely: There are two colons next to each other! As Larry 'Balls to the' Wall would openly admit in the Perl Documentation, Perl was designed from the ground up to indoctrinate it's programmers into performing unnatural sexual acts -- having two colons so closely together is clearly a reference to the perverse sickening act of 'colon kissing,' whereby two homosexual [goatse.fr] queers spread their buttocks wide, pressing their filthy torn sphincters together. They then share small round objects like marbles or golfballs by passing them from one rectum to another using muscle contraction alone. This is also referred to in programming 'circles' as 'Parameter Passing.'

And PHP [perl.org] stands for Perverted Homosexual Penetration. Didn't you know?

Thank you for your valuable input on this. I am sure you will be never forgotten. BTW: Did I mention that this could be useful in terraforming Mars? Mars rulaa. -- Eimernase [slashdot.org] , Slashdot

Well, I don't know about terraforming Mars, but I do know that homosexual [goatse.fr] Linux Advocates have been probing Uranus for years.

That's inspiring. Keep up the good work, AC. May God in his wisdom grant you the strength to bring the plain honest truth to this community, and make it pure again. Yours, Cerberus. -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

*sniff* That brings a tear to my eye. Thank you once more for your kind support. I have taken faith in the knowledge that I am doing the Good Lord [atheism.org] 's work, but it is encouraging to know that I am helping out the common man here.

However, I should be cautious about revealing your name 'Cerberus' on such a filthy den of depravity as Slashdot. It is a well known fact that the 'Kerberos' documentation from Microsoft is a detailed manual describing, in intimate, exacting detail, how to sexually penetrate a variety of unwilling canine animals; be they domesticated, wild, or mythical. Slashdot posters have taken great pleasure in illegally spreading this documentation far and wide, treating it as an 'extension' to the Linux 'Sauce Code,' for the sake of 'interoperability.' (The slang term they use for nonconsensual intercourse -- their favourite kind.)

In fact, sick twisted Linux deviants are known to have LAN parties, (Love of Anal Naughtiness, needless to say.), wherein they entice a stray dog, known as the 'Samba Mount,' into their homes. Up to four of these filth-sodden blasphemers against nature take turns to plunge their erect, throbbing, uncircumcised members, conkers-deep, into the rectum, mouth, and other fleshy orifices of the poor animal. Eventually, the 'Samba Mount' collapses due to 'overload,' and needs to be 'rebooted.' (i.e., kicked out into the street, and left to fend for itself.) Many Linux users boast about their 'uptime' in such situations.

Inspiring stuff! If only all trolls were this quality! -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

If only indeed. You can help our brave cause by moderating this message up as often as possible. I recommend '+1, Underrated,' as that will protect your precious Karma in Metamoderation [slashdot.org] . Only then can we break through the glass ceiling of Homosexual Slashdot Culture. Is it any wonder that the new version of Slashcode has been christened 'Bender'???

If we can get just one of these postings up to at least '+1,' then it will be archived forever! Others will learn of our struggle, and join with us in our battle for freedom!

It's pathetic you've spent so much time writing this. -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

I am compelled to document the foulness and carnal depravity [catholic.net] that is Linux, in order that we may prepare ourselves for the great holy war that is to follow. It is my solemn duty to peel back the foreskin of ignorance and apply the wire brush of enlightenment.

As with any great open-source project, you need someone asking this question, so I'll do it. When the hell is version 2.0 going to be ready?!?! -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

I could make an arrogant, childish comment along the lines of 'Every time someone asks for 2.0, I won't release it for another 24 hours,' but the truth of the matter is that I'm quite nervous of releasing a 'number two,' as I can guarantee some filthy shit-slurping Linux pervert would want to suck it straight out of my anus before I've even had chance to wipe.

I desperately want to suck your monolithic kernel, you sexy hunk, you. -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

I sincerely hope you're Natalie Portman [geocities.com] .

Dude, nothing on slashdot larger than 3 paragraphs is worth reading. Try to distill the message, whatever it was, and maybe I'll read it. As it is, I have to much open source software to write to waste even 10 seconds of precious time. 10 seconds is all its gonna take M$ to whoop Linux's ass. Vigilence is the price of Free (as in libre -- from the fine, frou frou French language) Software. Hack on fellow geeks, and remember: Friday is Bouillabaisse day except for heathens who do not believe that Jesus died for their sins. Those godless, oil drench, bearded sexist clowns can pull grits from their pantaloons (another fine, fine French word) and eat that. Anyway, try to keep your message focused and concise. For concision is the soul of derision. Way. -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

What the fuck?

I've read your gay conspiracy post version 1.3.0 and I must say I'm impressed. In particular, I appreciate how you have managed to squeeze in a healthy dose of the latent homosexuality you gay-bashing homos [comp-u-geek.net] tend to be full of. Thank you again. -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

Well bugger me!

ooooh honey. how insecure are you!!! wann a little massage from deare bruci. love you -- Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

Fuck right off!

IMPORTANT: This message needs to be heard (Not HURD [linux.org] , which is an acronym for 'Huge Unclean Rectal Dilator') across the whole community, so it has been released into the Public Domain [icopyright.com] . You know, that licence that we all had before those homoerotic crypto-fascists came out with the GPL [apple.com] (Gay Penetration License) that is no more than an excuse to see who's got the biggest feces-encrusted [rotten.com] cock. I would have put this up on Freshmeat [adultmember.com] , but that name is known to be a euphemism for the tight rump of a young boy.

Come to think of it, the whole concept of 'Source Control' unnerves me, because it sounds a bit like 'Sauce Control,' which is a description of the homosexual [goatse.fr] practice of holding the base of the cock shaft tightly upon the point of ejaculation, thus causing a build up of semenal fluid that is only released upon entry into an incision made into the base of the receiver's scrotum. And 'Open Sauce' is the act of ejaculating into another mans face or perhaps a biscuit to be shared later. Obviously, 'Closed Sauce' is the only Christian thing to do, as evidenced by the fact that it is what Cathedrals are all about.

Contributors: (although not to the eternal game of 'soggy biscuit' that open 'sauce' development has become) Anonymous Coward, Anonymous Coward, phee, Anonymous Coward, mighty jebus, Anonymous Coward, Anonymous Coward, double_h, Anonymous Coward, Eimernase, Anonymous Coward, Anonymous Coward, Anonymous Coward, Anonymous Coward, Anonymous Coward, Anonymous Coward, Anonymous Coward, Anonymous Coward. Further contributions are welcome.

Current changes: This version sent to FreeWIPO [slashdot.org] by 'Bring BackATV' as plain text. Reformatted everything, added all links back in (that we could match from the previous version), many new ones (Slashbot bait links). Even more spelling fixed. Who wrote this thing, CmdrTaco himself?

Previous changes: Yet more changes added. Spelling fixed. Feedback added. Explanation of 'distro' system. 'Mount Point' syntax described. More filth regarding `man` and Slashdot. Yet more fucking spelling fixed. 'Fetchmail' uncovered further. More Slashbot baiting. Apache exposed. Distribution licence at foot of document.

ANUX -- A full Linux distribution... Up your ass!

Re:Apple, Microsoft and Ninnle Labs (4, Funny)

gardyloo (512791) | more than 5 years ago | (#27937445)

Thanks, A Noways Cum Donor

Re:Apple, Microsoft and Ninnle Labs (3, Insightful)

Myrimos (1495513) | more than 5 years ago | (#27938885)

It has come to my attention that the entire Linux community is a hotbed of so called 'alternative sexuality'...

Should... should we mark this as funny?

Re:Apple, Microsoft and Ninnle Labs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27937863)

That reminds me of a joke

q: Is CmdrTaco gay?

a: He mos' certainly is!

Software vulnerabilities (-1, Troll)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 5 years ago | (#27937439)

I'm not one of those Steve Jobs idolizers, so I think I can look at this with at least a somewhat even-handed view.

Apple never had this kind of problem of serious security vulnerabilities while the Mac ran on non-x86 CPUs. It's only been in the past year that we've seen serious problems like this Safari browser vulnerability and the remote wifi vulnerability.

It's easy to point fingers at Microsoft for a faulty OS, but with Apple also suddenly suffering from the same type of security problems, I have to wonder if it isn't related to the choice of application processor.

Re:Software vulnerabilities (3, Insightful)

TW Atwater (1145245) | more than 5 years ago | (#27937571)

"It's easy to point fingers at Microsoft for a faulty OS, but with Apple also suddenly suffering from the same type of security problems, I have to wonder if it isn't related to the choice of application processor."

I'll bet that's why Linux users get so many viruses.

Re:Software vulnerabilities (5, Interesting)

ShadowRangerRIT (1301549) | more than 5 years ago | (#27937659)

A bit of a logical fallacy [wikipedia.org] there. Even if we assume that the switch to x86 was the trigger for more exploits (increased popularity of the OS being another possibility), it doesn't necessarily mean x86 is more vulnerable. The vast majority of exploits don't need to rely on processor specific characteristics after all.

What it means is that virus writers have limited time and experience. Ignoring trivial Trojans and the like that any script kiddie can bang out, an effective virus (e.g. worms) requires a lot of skill in the assembly language for the CPU, in order to write code that can fit in the available exploit "space". Writing worms for the Power PC architecture was a losing proposition since you didn't have a lot of targets. Now, if you have knowledge of x86 assembly, you can transfer your skills to Macs more easily.

Of course, porting programs to run in 64 bit mode *is* an effective security obstacle; one example is that since 64 bit addresses (in the current implementation) always contain nulls, buffer overruns are much harder to exploit. So yes, Power PC 64 bit is more secure, but if you wrote for an x86-64 target, you'd have roughly the same benefits.

Re:Software vulnerabilities (1)

Chlorine Trifluoride (1517149) | more than 5 years ago | (#27937693)

Another logical fallacy would be criticizing GP's post without looking at who the author of the post is.

In other words, woosh!

Re:Software vulnerabilities (1)

ShadowRangerRIT (1301549) | more than 5 years ago | (#27937829)

But it wasn't a bad analogy! There were no analogies at all! If I were responding to "LogicalFallacyGuy" I'd feel stupid, but as is, I feel justified.

Of course, if he's a frequent troll I hadn't picked up on before, mea culpa.

Re:Software vulnerabilities (3, Funny)

FiloEleven (602040) | more than 5 years ago | (#27937873)

Another logical fallacy would be criticizing GP's post without looking at who the author of the post is.

Nec hominem fallacy?

Re:Software vulnerabilities (3, Insightful)

ShadowRangerRIT (1301549) | more than 5 years ago | (#27937963)

If anything deserves a +1 Funny, it's unnecessary use of Latin for satiric purposes.

author of the post (1)

Gary W. Longsine (124661) | more than 5 years ago | (#27938373)

Is BadAnalogyGuy a well known troll, then? Why so many funny, insightful and other positive mod points raining down on him, then? Oh, this is Slashdot.

Re:Software vulnerabilities (1)

Repossessed (1117929) | more than 5 years ago | (#27938417)

More vulnerabilities and more exploits aren't quite the same thing though.

Re:Software vulnerabilities (4, Insightful)

ohcrapitssteve (1185821) | more than 5 years ago | (#27937673)

All that switching from RISC/PPC to x86_xx should change is "endianness." I hear passing worries of Intel chip-level vulnerabilities, but to my (admittedly limited to hitting up Google just now) knowledge is that these never really end up in mainstream exploits. Maybe, because there are plenty of much more easily exploitable vulnerabilities already known.

Again, not a security researcher or a system arch. expert myself, but what I've heard from those researching OS X vs. Windows vulnerabilities, Address Space Layout Randomization (ASLR) would make it much harder to exploit vulnerabilities on the Apple end. This feature appears to be slated for the next point release ("Snow Leopard") of Mac OS X. Essentially, the exploiter must try much harder to "find" the code planted in the target box's memory, when the vulnerability was exploited, in order to execute it.

Re:Software vulnerabilities (1)

SteeldrivingJon (842919) | more than 5 years ago | (#27938179)

Everyone knows how to hit an x86 in its vulnerables.

security is complex (MODS: get a grip) (5, Insightful)

Gary W. Longsine (124661) | more than 5 years ago | (#27938345)

Clearly your post demonstrates that you don't understand the subject well, but it doesn't *seem* like you're Trolling. Perhaps in context... hrm... over half of your recent posts were up-modded, so you don't appear to be a well known Troll. MODS! Get a grip. Security issues are complex. Obviously you mods don't know the subject any better. Meta moderation will punish you.

Mac OS X has had potential buffer overflow exploits, corrected in security updates and OS updates, Since the Earth Cooled (TM). Apple might be taking them a little more seriously, or they might be receiving more attention from others, now that the assembly language required to exploit them is understood by all the crax0rs, instead of merely 20% of them. Apple isn't suddenly experiencing the same type of security problems. Some defects exist (you typically learn of them when a patch becomes available) but have not yet been exploited by worms and viruses. The relative seriousness and amount of defects between the platforms is a matter of some debate.

Moreover, some of the mechanisms used to propagate malware on Windows rely on tricking the user (social engineering) into installing the malware. Those techniques, independent of exploitable defects, are certainly possible to apply to the Mac. Apparently a few attempts have been made (such as trojans planted in cracked pirate warezs recently). Widespread damage hasn't yet resulted, but isn't out of the question.

To p0wn a million Macs, one need only trick about 3% of Mac users into installing your malware. I've seen a couple clever Windows email viruses which tricked from 1/3 to 1/2 of the users who got the email within the first hour, infecting over 1% of an enterprise network, before the alerts went out and antivirus definitions were updated. I think the success of some of these tricks on Windows indicates pretty clearly that a malware outbreak on the Mac on the scale of a million victims or more is certainly possible, even without finding a defect and engineering the exploit. An email based scam, seeded with a list of known Mac users might do the trick. The Bad Guys (TM) could easily generate such a list by reading the emails on the millions of infected Windows computers, and snarfing the addresses out of received emails which came from known Mac email clients.

Of course, even those malware which relied primarily on social engineering, also rely on their ability to masquerade as a spreadsheet when they are really an exe, in the most popular Windows email clients, so it might be quite a bit harder to exploit social engineering on the Mac. It's hard to say, and I haven't seen any evidence that it's been tried yet.

If it does happen, the Mac community is not really prepared for it. AntiVirus software doesn't appear to be in use by most Mac users. There isn't a legion of companies rushing cleanup tools out the door every day. Mac users are not in the habit of looking for such regardless.

Brute force security (-1, Troll)

Aramil Moonmist (1548219) | more than 5 years ago | (#27937489)

These patches really lock security down on my vista computer. I mean there is no way anybody is exploiting anything after I apply these patches. Yep, no one is getting an ounce of data, even me, its that secure. I mean, you can try, but I'm pretty sure the bsod keeps everyone out. Until that day when I embrace the blue screen thoroughly, I'll have to run on my un-patched insecure computer.

Size... (4, Funny)

courcoul (801052) | more than 5 years ago | (#27937497)

> Probably the most surprising element of the Apple update is the overall size of it; 442MB for the point update, and 729MB for the ComboUpdate."

Well, the Server version of the Combo updater runs close to the whole GB. In other words, it would seem the patch is virtually overwriting the entire OS.

Wonder if the the Vista patch is doing the same, overwriting with Windows 7? :D

Re:Size... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27937607)

The "Patch" version of client is 286MB, which is still pretty big but quite a bit smaller than the delta. Unfortunately I ended up having to download it twice because software update screwed it up the first time.

Re:Size... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27938735)

Windows 7 isn't really Windows 7, it is Win 6.5, and is basically Vista SP2 (now with better PR).

Apple is Bad Too (0, Flamebait)

MogNuts (97512) | more than 5 years ago | (#27937501)

The update for OSX is huge. What's the surprise? OSX has tons of bugs and problems to fix as well. Actually, that's a bigger minor update than I've ever seen on Windows. Makes you think.

Don't believe the Mac zealots or Apple marketing hype.

Re:Apple is Bad Too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27938085)

Aww come'on, the Apple update comes with a pretty animated swishy, shiny wrapper that just looks the beezneez. You can't put a price on that. So what if it's huge? Don't you want your shiny pill? You know the answer to that.....or if you don't, pay your local dealers a visit where they will supply you with your answer. You should know the drill by now.

size matters? (2, Interesting)

Gary W. Longsine (124661) | more than 5 years ago | (#27938461)

Apple packages their OS updates based on the delta from the starting position of the users applying it, and wether the platform of the update is known at download time. Updates which include both PowerPC and Intel, and which span more than the most recent OS update tend to be quite large. However, for users this can be quite convenient. Your claim that one can learn something from the security of the platform from the size of an update is bogus, particularly as you don't cite any relevant evidence or provide a chain of argument supporting your claim.

Re:Apple is Bad Too (4, Informative)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 5 years ago | (#27938811)

*Sigh*. First of all, 10.5.7 [apple.com] contains both enhancements and fixes. Apple patches all the software that came bundled with OS X. In some cases, this software is not their own. If you look at just the security fixes for 10.5.7 [apple.com] , you would see that the non-Apple software is being patched:
  • Apache
  • BIND
  • CUPS
  • Flash
  • libxml
  • Kerebros
  • Net-SNMP
  • OpenSSL
  • PHP
  • ruby
  • telnet
  • WebKit
  • X11

That is being bundled with fixes and enhancements to their own software like "iCal: Improves overall reliability with CalDav." The MS update is all labeled "Vulnerability to . . ."

Dashboard patched thoroughly (5, Informative)

Sh1r0wgmx.de (747868) | more than 5 years ago | (#27937511)

Yeah the size of the update was a shock this morning, let me miss my usual train too. From what i've read http://www.macworld.com/article/140578/2009/05/1057update.html [macworld.com] the update does a lot more than is actually said (big surprise with the size), even though most of those things aren't directly visible. What i have found is that my dashboard updates a lot faster than before, as i have two standard weather widgets open at all times i guess they really optimized the code there. Normally it would take at least 5-10 seconds to update the display after opening the dashboard, now it's almost instantenous. Anyone else notice this too?

Re:Dashboard patched thoroughly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27937603)

So it's snappier?

Re:Dashboard patched thoroughly (3, Funny)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | more than 5 years ago | (#27937723)

let me miss my usual train too

The next Microsoft commercial: Apple makes you late for work.

Re:Dashboard patched thoroughly (2, Funny)

djdavetrouble (442175) | more than 5 years ago | (#27938325)

This speed boost that you are referring to is of course one of the best things about apple updates.
You call it faster, we (the hive mind of apple fandom) call it "SNAPPIER".

Seems that Dashboard is the recipient of some of Apples secret snappy sauce (ASSS) this time.

Re:Dashboard patched thoroughly (1)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 5 years ago | (#27938487)

Actually, that change was brought up in the patch release notes [apple.com] .

Improves the reliability and accuracy of Unit Converter, Stocks, Weather and Movies Dashboard widgets.

Re:Dashboard patched thoroughly (1)

Gary W. Longsine (124661) | more than 5 years ago | (#27938507)

The first load after a login isn't faster, but subsequent loads of Dashboard are really quite zippy.

What is so suprising about a 400mb update? (2, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 5 years ago | (#27937585)

Granted it is bigger then the ones you normally get. But it has been a rather long time since we got an update to the OS. Almost twice as long for this one and oddly enough it is about twice the size.

Re:What is so suprising about a 400mb update? (2, Informative)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 5 years ago | (#27937699)

This update alone isn't even that big - if you're using auto update on a machine that was previously patched up to date, 10.5.7 is only 286MB.

Re:What is so suprising about a 400mb update? (1)

brackishboy (1432215) | more than 5 years ago | (#27938341)

I was running 10.5.6 and my update was 449mb. I was almost entirely up to date aside from an iLife '09 update I've been putting off installing.

Re:What is so suprising about a 400mb update? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27937729)

The XP SP2 download is 266MB. The SP3 download is 316MB. Combined thats 582MB, which packs more functionality/security fixes in it then such updates from Apple.

Re:What is so suprising about a 400mb update? (-1, Troll)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 5 years ago | (#27938331)

Like what? Most of the new features in XP is just so your DRM will still keep working. And the security fixes are for problems that OS X doesn't have.

Besides 1 small problem may require a lot of changes to fix. The size of code changes and the problems corrected are not always linked. I remember back in the day when they switched from a.out binaries to elf binaries. If you just wanted to use the Distribution for Elf Binaries (Without a.out support) you needed to get new binaries for the whole distribution, a simple change that required a lot of data to be changed.

Re:What is so suprising about a 400mb update? (2, Insightful)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 5 years ago | (#27938525)

Yes, I don't think it's a big deal. The odd part is that Slashdot calls both "critical patches", as if these are mostly security related.

Well, for MS, it was, but for OS X, we just received what is comparable to a service pack upgrade. Of course it'll be big, and it's in line with what I think one can expect these days.

Static linking (0, Troll)

m50d (797211) | more than 5 years ago | (#27937657)

Apple's "everything bundled in the .app" policy may help avoid DLL hell, but this is the price you pay for it.

Re:Static linking (1)

DavidR1991 (1047748) | more than 5 years ago | (#27937881)

That download is a standalone multilingual install. The single language updater version is ~290MB. No "price is being paid" so to speak

Re:Static linking (2, Informative)

Halo1 (136547) | more than 5 years ago | (#27938201)

There are no "single language" versions of Mac OS X system software updates (at least not until now). What you are talking about is the delta version [apple.com] of the update. All updates always update all languages.

Re:Static linking (5, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#27937917)

Insightful? Absolute nonsense. This patch is entirely for Apple-supplied software. This all links against the system frameworks, and does not include its own version of anything. Frameworks shared between more than one Apple app are bundled in to the global frameworks directory. Also, most of the stuff being updated (e.g. Apache, which has had several security holes fixed in this update) isn't in a .app bundle.

Re:Static linking (1)

jurv!s (688306) | more than 5 years ago | (#27937937)

Have you never looked in /System/Library/Frameworks/?

Re:Static linking (2, Informative)

blueg3 (192743) | more than 5 years ago | (#27937969)

I'm not sure how this is insightful. A .app is a directory. While everything is bundled in it (not strictly true, but close enough), they're still separate files, and dynamic linking works just fine. Another thing that works just fine is updaters that replace only some of the files in the .app.

Re:Static linking (1)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 5 years ago | (#27938543)

Hm, I'm not really convinced there. Microsoft's service packs are also comparable in size, and this is essentially a service pack for OS X Leopard. It's a roll up of all security fixes released thus far, and much more.

Inconsistent update sizes (1)

Trentus (1017602) | more than 5 years ago | (#27937731)

My 10.5.7 update was significantly smaller than what's listed in the summary. It was about 290mb for my third generation macbook pro. Why is it so?

Re:Inconsistent update sizes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27937981)

My 10.5.7 update was significantly smaller than what's listed in the summary ... Why is it so?

Maybe you dont have all the installed apps?

Re:Inconsistent update sizes (1)

reashlin (1370169) | more than 5 years ago | (#27938195)

Up to date system requires less updating than an out of date system.

ergo he remain up to date all along.

Solution seems straightforward enough (4, Insightful)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 5 years ago | (#27937781)

The SANS link makes some great points about Microsoft and responsible disclosure. After reading that, I think it's obvious what needs to be done. Quit helping Microsoft cover their rear when they're going to turn around and attempt to use it as a cudgel against their perceived competition.

If you're a security researcher, and you discover a flaw in a Microsoft product - stop buying into the flawed MS version of responsible disclosure. Notify Microsoft right away, certainly; but from now on also announce it to SANS and the other responsible security organizations at the same time. That way the affected users - ALL affected users - can take steps to mitigate their exposure.

Re:Solution seems straightforward enough (5, Interesting)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 5 years ago | (#27938527)

Also don't trust MS reports on their own security. They deliberately fudge numbers to make their OS look good by redefining metrics. For example, MS says that they actually patch faster than RedHat, Apple, or SuSE. [computerworlduk.com] Of course what MS doesn't tell you is that they define "time to patch" as the time between when they publicly disclose a bug and when they patch it. Linux and some parts of Apple systems (the parts based on open source) define "time to patch" as the time between when a bug is verified and when it is patched. Recently MS patched a bug that has been lingering for 7 years [slashdot.org] . The "time to patch" for this bug was one month according to MS since it was released in Nov. 2008 and fixed in Dec. 2008.

Now before anyone starts linking the 25 year old bug in BSD realize that the situations were different. That bug required conditions that didn't exist until present day conditions: Namely if you are using Samba on BSD and your directory has more than up to 250,000 items. As such the BSD bug has been present for 25 years, but could be not triggered much less verified until recent years. The 7 year old MS bug was verified and has been present on all Windows versions since that time.

Re:Solution seems straightforward enough (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#27938619)

Now before anyone starts linking the 25 year old bug in BSD realize that the situations were different.

Please explain why that bug didn't get fixed when the Samba developers discovered it, since they knew about it already when the current flap happened.

Re:Solution seems straightforward enough (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 5 years ago | (#27939001)

I don't have any specific information about that other than googling for it. But my point is still valid. The bug has been present in the code for 25 years but conditions didn't exist until recent years that could trigger it. When a BSD developer found the bug, he fixed it right away. The situation with MS was 8 years ago people showed a working exploit. They didn't get around to fixing it until last year.

Re:Solution seems straightforward enough (2, Interesting)

blowdart (31458) | more than 5 years ago | (#27938529)

That way the affected users - ALL affected users - can take steps to mitigate their exposure.

You are assuming that you can take steps. Take the DNS flaw. It affected everyone on the internet. There was no mitigation. Should Dan have announced it to SANS et al, rather than talking to MS (because he was contracting with them at the time) and getting all the DNS companies in quietly to discuss it? Like hell. It would have leaked, and it would have been disastrous.

obvious conflict of interest (4, Insightful)

bcrowell (177657) | more than 5 years ago | (#27937813)

There's a gigantic conflict of interest here. By treating MacOS as a second-class citizen, they can hurt a competitor in the OS market. If MS can make people perceive Windows as the only first-class platform on which to run Office, it makes MS more likely to retain market share for Windows. MS's interests in this case are diametrically opposed to the interests of their users.

A similar situation applies to old versions of Windows. The California community college where I teach has a whole bunch of student computer labs with machines from about 2001, which all have Windows 2000 on them. MS's support for Win2k ends in July of 2010, and that means no more security patches. We could upgrade to XP, but although our machines do theoretically satisfy XP's hardware requirements, it's not clear whether they'd have acceptable performance with XP. Again, MS's interests are diametrically opposed to ours. They want to keep us on the upgrade treadmill. They're happy to let Win2k become a non-viable platform, so that we'll be forced to buy new hardware, which will come with Vista preinstalled. Except, uh, the California state budget crisis means that we can't afford to buy new hardware. Of course they MS never promised us to support Win2k indefinitely, and our managers should have done a better job of planning ahead so that this wouldn't become a crisis. But it really does strike me that this is the kind of problem that would have never happened with Linux. I can run Ubuntu for as long as I want, and just keep upgrading to the latest version. Linux runs well on old hardware, so there's no upgrade treadmill. No big mystery why it's this way: it's because Linus Torvalds, Mark Shuttleworth, etc. don't have interests that conflict with the user's.

Re:obvious conflict of interest (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27937877)

That is the longest explanation of a "for profit business" that I've ever seen.

Re:obvious conflict of interest (1)

Chlorine Trifluoride (1517149) | more than 5 years ago | (#27938301)

Why is this flamebait? If GP had complained that he no longer got Win95 patches, he would have been laughed out of the room.

10 years (1)

Frankie70 (803801) | more than 5 years ago | (#27938097)

Can you please list other commercial OS'es which are still supported after 10 years?

Re:10 years (1)

bcrowell (177657) | more than 5 years ago | (#27938439)

Can you please list other commercial OS'es which are still supported after 10 years?

No, I can't. I didn't intend to imply that MS was worse than other proprietary OS vendors. I just meant that proprietary OS vendors were worse than open-source OS vendors.

Apple often has the same issue where its interests conflict with the interests of its users. The existence of the iPhone jailbreaking scene is a good example of that. If anything, I think the treadmill phenomenon is worse with MacOS than with Windows. I've owned something like a nine macs since 1985. My wife and I finally stopped paying for the $130 MacOS X system upgrades several years ago, and stopped putting money into repairing her ailing lampshade iMac. The result is that we have one iBook that can't run any recent software, and which we only get out of the closet a few times a year when we need it on a trip, or when we need to access a web site that won't work with Firefox.

Re:obvious conflict of interest (1)

DCstewieG (824956) | more than 5 years ago | (#27938107)

There's not much difference between Ubuntu and Windows besides Ubuntu always having the advantage of free. Even LTS [ubuntu.com] releases only have support for 3 years on the desktop. Meanwhile Windows 2000 is on it's 10th year or so? That's not bad.

You say there's no upgrade treadmill on Linux but there is...it just happens to be free.

/Devil's advocate

Re:obvious conflict of interest (1)

bcrowell (177657) | more than 5 years ago | (#27938265)

You say there's no upgrade treadmill on Linux but there is...it just happens to be free.

There's no hardware treadmill (because Linux supports old hardware well), and the OS treadmill is free.

Re:obvious conflict of interest (2, Interesting)

darkmeridian (119044) | more than 5 years ago | (#27938401)

Should Microsoft still be supporting DOS 6.22 or Windows 95? Or, cough, Windows ME? Linux can keep going without deprecating old versions because no one's responsible for its upkeep. I mean, there are developers who maintain packages, but if shit hits the fan, no one is liable for it. If Microsoft maintains support for Windows 2000, that means it has to provide security updates and field service calls for that OS. The fixes may take forever or may never come at all, but MS has to take care of that operating system. Linux has no such obligations.

That's not to say that MS has an inherent interest in getting its customers to upgrade but there's a valid reason for them to discontinue support of old operating systems.

Re:obvious conflict of interest (1)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 5 years ago | (#27938849)

I mean, there are developers who maintain packages, but if shit hits the fan, no one is liable for it.

That is precisely the reason why companies like Red Hat package up Linux into a (Red Hat) supportable distribution that they will accept liability for if something does go wrong - which is the reason why you pay them for the actual distro and for their support of it.

Re:obvious conflict of interest (2, Interesting)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#27938577)

There's a gigantic conflict of interest here. [...] A similar situation applies to old versions of Windows.

It's similar in that Microsoft's goals and society's goals do not intersect. It's different in that if you're trying to stick to an old version of Windows then that's your fault (Especially given how long Windows releases last!) but if you're trying to manipulate a file in a format mandated by those you must do business with, then that's not. The schools chose the Microsoft path knowing that Windows releases have a finite lifespan. They bought into the false "windows vs. mac" dichotomy and now we are all paying. But that in itself is not evidence of any wrongdoing, which is what we usually talk about when we talk about Microsoft... because there's so much of it to talk about.

Re:obvious conflict of interest (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27938665)

I call "fanboy" on the linux plug. I've seen Ubuntu OS upgrades leave machines completely hosed.

I've also had system updates on a ubuntu machine render things like the ps2 keyboard and mouse (that had worked flawlessly before) suddenly useless.

Sure I was able to hunt around and figure out what module they left out of the shiny new kernel load it and get them working again. But then the very next update I had to do the same thing for my trusty NVidia card.

The point you were trying to make that somehow linux magically sidesteps the hardware/software evolutionary hurdles is comepletely false.

If you want new features at some point you have to have new code. Depending on the features you have to have new hardware.

Neither windows or linux are currently good enough at managing either for me to call a clear winner.

Size of updates of OS X (1)

aristotle-dude (626586) | more than 5 years ago | (#27938095)

One of the reasons for the size of the updates is that OS X is a multilingual OS by default so everything in the UI is localized with multiple sets of resource files for each language. With Vista/WIndows 7, you have to be running the most expensive version (Ultimate) in order to download additional language packs while that functionality is included by default on each OS X install.

This localization does not just go down to the level of text strings but also images, icons and even the complete form layout can be different for each language offering a great deal of flexibility.

Re:Size of updates of OS X (1)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 5 years ago | (#27938897)

I'm always amused by the defensiveness of the Apple fanbois...

Does is actually *REALLY MATTER* what size the update is in these days of fast broadband connections? And who actually gives a toss how much of the update is bug fixes and how much is localizations, feature updates, etc.

I'm not an OSX user but the update has a size that implies it's a Service Pack - so either install it or don't install it, just stop with the excuse making to the rest of us!

The write up fails to mention (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27938127)

There are nearly 70 security flaws OS X is patching. The 14 for MS is prominently displayed...
http://www.informationweek.com/news/hardware/mac/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=217400595&subSection=Macintosh+Platform

This can't be right! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27938181)

As well as addressing numerous significant security risks, the 10.5.7 update provides a number of stability and capability enhancements

Seriously, this has to be wrong. Every Mac every sold has ZERO security risks and ZERO stability issues.

What about Adobe? (1)

Briareos (21163) | more than 5 years ago | (#27938261)

They've released (long overdue) patches for Acrobat and Acrobat Reader today...

np: Moderat - Porc#1 (Moderat)

YuOU FAIL IT (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27938551)

the reAper BSD's continues in a

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. (1)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 5 years ago | (#27938941)

So MS even gets bashed when they fix security problems. Amazing!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?