Re: the exploit that wasn't
- From: Tom Reestman <treestman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 06:16:42 GMT
Steve de Mena (steven@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) got drunk after typing this
drivel in news:462a664c$0$19452$4c368faf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
DanielEran wrote:
And what about the others? Recall that this was a FULLY patchedWhat about the other what?
system.
The other Mac Book Pro? It was not compromised. There were two, and
only one was given away.
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech.Q2.07/616874CC-35CE-49D3-B85
9-C2719B6FF352.html
Instead of discussing what happened at CanSecWest
we just get yet another anti-Microsoft rant,
rehashing the same old tired myths again and again.
Yawn.
Steve
Another knee-jerk dismissal of a RoughlyDrafted artice, I see.
How is the following not "discusssing what happened at CanSecWest"?
"...Gohring?s article clearly described a local exploit. There?s a big
difference between the remote exploits that made Windows infamous for its
insecurity and a local exploit of an application."
"Opening an email URL that exposes a security flaw in Safari is both news
to report and a problem for Apple to tackle, but reporting it as a remote
exploit is inaccurate, irresponsible, and sloppy journalism, particularly
for IDG's InfoWorld, which purports to be an authority on computing."
I'd say that sums it up nicely, and his taking InfoWorld to task for its
misleading headline is perfectly valid.
As for the rest of the article, it goes on to bash Dragos Ruiu's
ridiculous statement (quoted in the IW article) regarding OS X security,
and does so well. It certainly does not change the accuracy of the above.
Ruiu, as the principle organizer of the conference, specifically brought
Microsoft into a security discussion about Mac OS X. That was about as
dumb as it gets, and left the door open for RoughlyDrafted to call it for
the ridiculous statement that it is.
--
Tom
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: the exploit that wasn't
- From: Steve de Mena
- Re: the exploit that wasn't
- References:
- the exploit that wasn't
- From: none
- Re: the exploit that wasn't
- From: Snit
- Re: the exploit that wasn't
- From: PC Guy
- Re: the exploit that wasn't
- From: Snit
- Re: the exploit that wasn't
- From: DanielEran
- Re: the exploit that wasn't
- From: Steve de Mena
- the exploit that wasn't
- Prev by Date: Re: Leopard delays
- Next by Date: Re: Mac Hack
- Previous by thread: Re: the exploit that wasn't
- Next by thread: Re: the exploit that wasn't
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|