Firefox Whips Internet Explorer In Vulnerability Tally 3390

On Wednesday 08 March 2006 18:31 Erik Funkenbusch

OK - consider this (from the same article):-

"Windows XP Professional, said Symantec, stays safe just one hour and 12 seconds, while the Windows 2000 Server (with SP4) made it an hour and 17 minutes. An unpatched Windows Server 2003 system lasted somewhat longer. In contrast, unpatched Linux installations of both Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3 and SuSE Linux 9 Desktop were never compromised during their month-and-a-half exposure to attackers. Patched Windows systems, however, remained untouched throughout the test, backing both its and Microsoft's advice to patch regularly, and patch promptly. "Applying patches in a timely manner is an important component of an effective security strategy," the report read"

Sure, those first figures are *unpatched* (in the case of both MS and Linux), and sure, the *patched* Windows fared quite well - as well (it would seem) as the *unpatched* Linux! However, does this give you some idea of what he perhaps meant by "foundation"?

(Also, going back to the analogy and "who cares", I care. If there's 17 gaping holes *and* the foundations are shakey, maybe one ought to cut one's losses and start over; by contrast, if the foundation is good, let's talk repairs!)