On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 09:23:21 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

> On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 19:12:56 +0200, Ian Hilliard wrote:
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>> On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 15:59:37 +0100, Doug Mentohl wrote:
>>>> 'Symantec .. successfully tested the exploit against fully patched
>>>> Windows XP-SP2 and Windows 2003-SP1 machines'
>>>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=603
>>> Gee, guess what?
>>> "Windows Vista does not seem to be affected by the problem, Florio
>>> said."
>>> And yet people keep insisting that Vista is no less vulnerable than
>>> XP.

>> "No Less Vulnerabilities than XP" does not necessarily mean that Vista
>> has the same vulnerabilities as XP.

> Considering that as of yet, there hasn't been a single vulnerability
> found that is Vista only, that's kind of an odd statement.

No Vista-specific vulnerabilities.

Except for this one:


Or this one:


Not that it matters. Even if Vista has thousands fewer exploits than
previous versions, it remains a sieve. And the fact that OEMs continue to
offer XP as an option, despite resistance from Microsoft, would suggest
that consumers aren't buying Vista much. Which doesn't affect Microsoft's
sales of Vista, of course - poor widdle OEMs are stuck with the garbage
Microsoft forced on them.

´╗┐This message is brought to you by your Department of Redundancy Department.