Leopard with *****s in its armour - Linux

This is a discussion on Leopard with *****s in its armour - Linux ; http://www.heise-security.co.uk/articles/98120 /quote Apple is using security in general and the new firewall in particular to promote Leopard, the latest version of Mac OS X. However, initial functional testing has already uncovered cause for concern. /unquote Yup. "Professional" programmers like the ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Leopard with *****s in its armour

  1. Leopard with *****s in its armour

    http://www.heise-security.co.uk/articles/98120

    /quote
    Apple is using security in general and the new firewall in particular to
    promote Leopard, the latest version of Mac OS X. However, initial
    functional testing has already uncovered cause for concern.
    /unquote

    Yup. "Professional" programmers like the apple variety are so much better
    than their OSS counterparts. According to our resident idiots from both the
    MS and apple camp

    One wonders how they manage to introduce such blunders, then
    --
    Hardware, n.:
    The parts of a computer system that can be kicked.


  2. Re: Leopard with *****s in its armour


    "Peter Köhlmann" wrote in message
    news:fg5fgt$c5o$03$1@news.t-online.com...
    > http://www.heise-security.co.uk/articles/98120
    >
    > /quote
    > Apple is using security in general and the new firewall in particular to
    > promote Leopard, the latest version of Mac OS X. However, initial
    > functional testing has already uncovered cause for concern.
    > /unquote
    >
    > Yup. "Professional" programmers like the apple variety are so much better
    > than their OSS counterparts. According to our resident idiots from both
    > the
    > MS and apple camp


    Actually it's the crappy OSS code that has the bugs:

    [quote]
    Risk
    Whether the accessible services currently represent a security risk is hard
    to judge. The fact that Apple uses versions of open source software in which
    bugs have already been found and documented by the developers is cause for
    concern.






    > One wonders how they manage to introduce such blunders, then
    > --
    > Hardware, n.:
    > The parts of a computer system that can be kicked.
    >




    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  3. Re: Leopard with *****s in its armour

    Keith Windsor wrote:

    >
    > "Peter Köhlmann" wrote in message
    > news:fg5fgt$c5o$03$1@news.t-online.com...
    >> http://www.heise-security.co.uk/articles/98120
    >>
    >> /quote
    >> Apple is using security in general and the new firewall in particular to
    >> promote Leopard, the latest version of Mac OS X. However, initial
    >> functional testing has already uncovered cause for concern.
    >> /unquote
    >>
    >> Yup. "Professional" programmers like the apple variety are so much better
    >> than their OSS counterparts. According to our resident idiots from both
    >> the
    >> MS and apple camp

    >
    > Actually it's the crappy OSS code that has the bugs:
    >
    > [quote]
    > Risk
    > Whether the accessible services currently represent a security risk is
    > hard to judge. The fact that Apple uses versions of open source software
    > in which bugs have already been found and documented by the developers is
    > cause for concern.
    >
    >


    Poor Keith. You failed to mention that those have already new versions
    without the bugs

    /quote
    Apple uses ntpd 4.2.2, the current version is 4.2.4
    ....
    The same applies to the Samba package (3.0.25b-apple), of which releases
    3.0.25c and 3.0.26a contained numerous bug fixes.
    ....
    /unquote

    Isn't it hilarious how you prove time and again with your own posts what
    incompetent troll you are? You can't get even *that* right

    You know, OSS software actually gets patched when bugs are found.
    Seems CSS companies are less concerned, though
    --
    Windows: Because everyone needs a good laugh!


  4. Re: Leopard with *****s in its armour


    "Peter Köhlmann" wrote in message
    news:fg5htq$iol$02$1@news.t-online.com...
    > Keith Windsor wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> "Peter Khlmann" wrote in message
    >> news:fg5fgt$c5o$03$1@news.t-online.com...
    >>> http://www.heise-security.co.uk/articles/98120
    >>>
    >>> /quote
    >>> Apple is using security in general and the new firewall in particular to
    >>> promote Leopard, the latest version of Mac OS X. However, initial
    >>> functional testing has already uncovered cause for concern.
    >>> /unquote
    >>>
    >>> Yup. "Professional" programmers like the apple variety are so much
    >>> better
    >>> than their OSS counterparts. According to our resident idiots from both
    >>> the
    >>> MS and apple camp

    >>
    >> Actually it's the crappy OSS code that has the bugs:
    >>
    >> [quote]
    >> Risk
    >> Whether the accessible services currently represent a security risk is
    >> hard to judge. The fact that Apple uses versions of open source software
    >> in which bugs have already been found and documented by the developers is
    >> cause for concern.
    >>
    >>

    >
    > Poor Keith. You failed to mention that those have already new versions
    > without the bugs
    >
    > /quote
    > Apple uses ntpd 4.2.2, the current version is 4.2.4
    > ...
    > The same applies to the Samba package (3.0.25b-apple), of which releases
    > 3.0.25c and 3.0.26a contained numerous bug fixes.
    > ...
    > /unquote
    >
    > Isn't it hilarious how you prove time and again with your own posts what
    > incompetent troll you are? You can't get even *that* right
    >
    > You know, OSS software actually gets patched when bugs are found.
    > Seems CSS companies are less concerned, though


    Poor Kohlboy - You failed to mention that the "fixes" may not have actually
    fixed the security vulnerabilities the article mentions.

    - "It is not clear whether any of the bug fixes are relevant in this
    scenario and if Apple back-ported fixes from more recent versions."

    Then again the point isn't whether or not these security holes have been
    fixed. Your specific comment was:

    = "Yup. "Professional" programmers like the apple variety are so much better
    than their OSS counterparts."

    The fact is that these bugs and security holes were written by OSS coders.
    Maybe they are now fixed. Maybe not. But it's bugs in the sloppy OSS code
    that created these problems and NOT the code that was written at Apple.

    As usual with retards, you once again fail to grasp the point. Open your
    mouth even wider... you may yet be able to stick your other foot in there.




    > --
    > Windows: Because everyone needs a good laugh!
    >




    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  5. Re: Leopard with *****s in its armour

    Keith Windsor wrote:

    >
    > "Peter Köhlmann" wrote in message
    > news:fg5htq$iol$02$1@news.t-online.com...
    >> Keith Windsor wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> "Peter Khlmann" wrote in message
    >>> news:fg5fgt$c5o$03$1@news.t-online.com...
    >>>> http://www.heise-security.co.uk/articles/98120
    >>>>
    >>>> /quote
    >>>> Apple is using security in general and the new firewall in particular
    >>>> to promote Leopard, the latest version of Mac OS X. However, initial
    >>>> functional testing has already uncovered cause for concern.
    >>>> /unquote
    >>>>
    >>>> Yup. "Professional" programmers like the apple variety are so much
    >>>> better
    >>>> than their OSS counterparts. According to our resident idiots from both
    >>>> the
    >>>> MS and apple camp
    >>>
    >>> Actually it's the crappy OSS code that has the bugs:
    >>>
    >>> [quote]
    >>> Risk
    >>> Whether the accessible services currently represent a security risk is
    >>> hard to judge. The fact that Apple uses versions of open source software
    >>> in which bugs have already been found and documented by the developers
    >>> is cause for concern.
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >> Poor Keith. You failed to mention that those have already new versions
    >> without the bugs
    >>
    >> /quote
    >> Apple uses ntpd 4.2.2, the current version is 4.2.4
    >> ...
    >> The same applies to the Samba package (3.0.25b-apple), of which releases
    >> 3.0.25c and 3.0.26a contained numerous bug fixes.
    >> ...
    >> /unquote
    >>
    >> Isn't it hilarious how you prove time and again with your own posts what
    >> incompetent troll you are? You can't get even *that* right
    >>
    >> You know, OSS software actually gets patched when bugs are found.
    >> Seems CSS companies are less concerned, though

    >
    > Poor Kohlboy - You failed to mention that the "fixes" may not have
    > actually fixed the security vulnerabilities the article mentions.
    >
    >
    > - "It is not clear whether any of the bug fixes are relevant in this
    > scenario and if Apple back-ported fixes from more recent versions."
    >
    >
    >
    > Then again the point isn't whether or not these security holes have been
    > fixed. Your specific comment was:
    >
    > = "Yup. "Professional" programmers like the apple variety are so much
    > better than their OSS counterparts."
    >
    > The fact is that these bugs and security holes were written by OSS coders.
    > Maybe they are now fixed. Maybe not. But it's bugs in the sloppy OSS code
    > that created these problems and NOT the code that was written at Apple.
    >
    > As usual with retards, you once again fail to grasp the point. Open your
    > mouth even wider... you may yet be able to stick your other foot in there.
    >


    So now we have to add "extremely poor reading comprehension" to
    your "skills"?
    --
    The Day Microsoft makes something that does not suck is probably
    the day they start making vacuum cleaners.


  6. Re: Leopard with *****s in its armour

    Peter Köhlmann wrote:

    > Keith Windsor wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> "Peter Köhlmann" wrote in message
    >> news:fg5htq$iol$02$1@news.t-online.com...
    >>> Keith Windsor wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> "Peter Khlmann" wrote in message
    >>>> news:fg5fgt$c5o$03$1@news.t-online.com...
    >>>>> http://www.heise-security.co.uk/articles/98120
    >>>>>
    >>>>> /quote
    >>>>> Apple is using security in general and the new firewall in particular
    >>>>> to promote Leopard, the latest version of Mac OS X. However, initial
    >>>>> functional testing has already uncovered cause for concern.
    >>>>> /unquote
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Yup. "Professional" programmers like the apple variety are so much
    >>>>> better
    >>>>> than their OSS counterparts. According to our resident idiots from
    >>>>> both the
    >>>>> MS and apple camp
    >>>>
    >>>> Actually it's the crappy OSS code that has the bugs:
    >>>>
    >>>> [quote]
    >>>> Risk
    >>>> Whether the accessible services currently represent a security risk is
    >>>> hard to judge. The fact that Apple uses versions of open source
    >>>> software in which bugs have already been found and documented by the
    >>>> developers is cause for concern.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Poor Keith. You failed to mention that those have already new versions
    >>> without the bugs
    >>>
    >>> /quote
    >>> Apple uses ntpd 4.2.2, the current version is 4.2.4
    >>> ...
    >>> The same applies to the Samba package (3.0.25b-apple), of which releases
    >>> 3.0.25c and 3.0.26a contained numerous bug fixes.
    >>> ...
    >>> /unquote
    >>>
    >>> Isn't it hilarious how you prove time and again with your own posts what
    >>> incompetent troll you are? You can't get even *that* right
    >>>
    >>> You know, OSS software actually gets patched when bugs are found.
    >>> Seems CSS companies are less concerned, though

    >>
    >> Poor Kohlboy - You failed to mention that the "fixes" may not have
    >> actually fixed the security vulnerabilities the article mentions.
    >>
    >>
    >> - "It is not clear whether any of the bug fixes are relevant in this
    >> scenario and if Apple back-ported fixes from more recent versions."
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Then again the point isn't whether or not these security holes have been
    >> fixed. Your specific comment was:
    >>
    >> = "Yup. "Professional" programmers like the apple variety are so much
    >> better than their OSS counterparts."
    >>
    >> The fact is that these bugs and security holes were written by OSS
    >> coders. Maybe they are now fixed. Maybe not. But it's bugs in the sloppy
    >> OSS code that created these problems and NOT the code that was written at
    >> Apple.
    >>
    >> As usual with retards, you once again fail to grasp the point. Open your
    >> mouth even wider... you may yet be able to stick your other foot in
    >> there.
    >>

    >
    > So now we have to add "extremely poor reading comprehension" to
    > your "skills"?


    Sounds like Haddock.....er....Hardon.

    --
    Operating systems: FreeBSD 6.2, PC-BSD 1.4,
    Testing: FreeBSD 7.0-BETA1.5
    Linux systems: Debian 4.0, PCLinuxOS 2007,
    Kubuntu 7.10 "Gutsy"

  7. Re: Leopard with *****s in its armour


    "Peter Köhlmann" wrote in message
    news:fg5ksu$np3$03$2@news.t-online.com...
    > Keith Windsor wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> "Peter Khlmann" wrote in message
    >> news:fg5htq$iol$02$1@news.t-online.com...
    >>> Keith Windsor wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> "Peter Khlmann" wrote in message
    >>>> news:fg5fgt$c5o$03$1@news.t-online.com...
    >>>>> http://www.heise-security.co.uk/articles/98120
    >>>>>
    >>>>> /
    >>>>> Apple is using security in general and the new firewall in particular
    >>>>> to promote Leopard, the latest version of Mac OS X. However, initial
    >>>>> functional testing has already uncovered cause for concern.
    >>>>> /unquote
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Yup. "Professional" programmers like the apple variety are so much
    >>>>> better
    >>>>> than their OSS counterparts. According to our resident idiots from
    >>>>> both
    >>>>> the
    >>>>> MS and apple camp
    >>>>
    >>>> Actually it's the crappy OSS code that has the bugs:
    >>>>
    >>>> [quote]
    >>>> Risk
    >>>> Whether the accessible services currently represent a security risk is
    >>>> hard to judge. The fact that Apple uses versions of open source
    >>>> software
    >>>> in which bugs have already been found and documented by the developers
    >>>> is cause for concern.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Poor Keith. You failed to mention that those have already new versions
    >>> without the bugs
    >>>
    >>> /quote
    >>> Apple uses ntpd 4.2.2, the current version is 4.2.4
    >>> ...
    >>> The same applies to the Samba package (3.0.25b-apple), of which releases
    >>> 3.0.25c and 3.0.26a contained numerous bug fixes.
    >>> ...
    >>> /unquote
    >>>
    >>> Isn't it hilarious how you prove time and again with your own posts what
    >>> incompetent troll you are? You can't get even *that* right
    >>>
    >>> You know, OSS software actually gets patched when bugs are found.
    >>> Seems CSS companies are less concerned, though

    >>
    >> Poor Kohlboy - You failed to mention that the "fixes" may not have
    >> actually fixed the security vulnerabilities the article mentions.
    >>
    >>
    >> - "It is not clear whether any of the bug fixes are relevant in this
    >> scenario and if Apple back-ported fixes from more recent versions."
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Then again the point isn't whether or not these security holes have been
    >> fixed. Your specific comment was:
    >>
    >> = "Yup. "Professional" programmers like the apple variety are so much
    >> better than their OSS counterparts."
    >>
    >> The fact is that these bugs and security holes were written by OSS
    >> coders.
    >> Maybe they are now fixed. Maybe not. But it's bugs in the sloppy OSS code
    >> that created these problems and NOT the code that was written at Apple.
    >>
    >> As usual with retards, you once again fail to grasp the point. Open your
    >> mouth even wider... you may yet be able to stick your other foot in
    >> there.
    >>

    >
    > So now we have to add "extremely poor reading comprehension" to
    > your "skills"?


    Ignorant, stupid and German is no way to go through life son. Looks to me
    like he proved that you are wrong and you run away like the cowardly little
    german boy that you are.


    > --
    > The Day Microsoft makes something that does not suck is probably
    > the day they start making vacuum cleaners.
    >




    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


+ Reply to Thread