On BNET: Online porn struggles for profits
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 23 of 73:
Next »
« Previous
You misunderstood the data in the table
First of all, just because a system can be exploited doesn't mean that people will necessarily exploit it. As Aitel's paper points out, there are a lot of tools available for exploiting Windows systems. So it attracts all kinds of exploiters, including incompetent and "kiddie" exploiters. To exploit OS X and Linux, you have to be somewhat competent.

However, it's not true that there are no exploits in the wild for OS X and in fact just a few months ago a major exploit for it was widely discussed in the media.

In addition, you are reading the table in the report incorrectly. "Number of 0day" means number of exploitable vulnerabilities (otherwise known as "fish" in this report).

For OS X, they caught three fish or exploitable vulnerabilities ("Number of 0day") and they were found by Immunity's researchers on average within an hour from when they started looking for them ("Average Time"). There were four fish caught for Windows, and they were found within three days of looking for them. For Linux, they caught three fish and it took six days to get them.

BTW, this table is quite possibly the most common method of data presentation. While I'm not surprised that the other data in the paper were not observed or understood by a lot of the commenters, I am surprised that all the people claiming the report lacked data didn't notice this. It's hard to miss.
Posted by: dhk   Posted on: 08/15/04 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use
Reply to Story Reply to Message

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

this is nice and all....but where's the link?  Monkey_MCSE | 08/13/04
This is a white paper  dhk | 08/14/04
Talk about your misleading titles...  Michael Kelly | 08/13/04
Well, it's a staple for ZDNet..  Jeff Spicoli | 08/13/04
SP2  georgep_z | 08/13/04
Nope, you missed the point  AbsolutelyNot | 08/13/04
Don't any of you understand what constitutes data?  dhk | 08/14/04
Without data the whitepaper is opinion, not fact  balsover | 08/15/04
Linux is not for everyone -- so why are you worried about this paper?  dhk | 08/15/04
Here is the a link to the paper.  toadlife | 08/13/04
I think you missed the point  dhk | 08/14/04
Allow me to break it down for you  toadlife | 08/14/04
You just don't get it  dhk | 08/14/04
You take the paper too seriously  toadlife | 08/14/04
The paper is serious  dhk | 08/15/04
You might have a few misconceptions about me  toadlife | 08/15/04
My conceptions can only be based on what you say  dhk | 08/15/04
The servers weren't patched  toadlife | 08/15/04
I've just rechecked CERT & others -- you're incorrect  dhk | 08/15/04
I'm completely and utterly dumbfounded.  toadlife | 08/15/04
I believe you are dumbfounded  dhk | 08/16/04
Disagree re OS X  Fred Fredrickson | 08/15/04
You misunderstood the data in the table  dhk | 08/15/04
Thanks  Fred Fredrickson | 08/16/04
Still makes no sense  ITGuy04 | 08/16/04
Re: Thanks  dhk | 08/16/04
Re: Still makes no sense  dhk | 08/16/04
Thanks... again  Fred Fredrickson | 08/16/04
I agree...this paper was not for the lay reader  dhk | 08/16/04
I have to admit...lol..that was AWESOME..  DigitalKid | 08/13/04
The paper wasn't written to be serious...  el1jones | 08/13/04
Because...  toadlife | 08/13/04
Oh, but it was...  AbsolutelyNot | 08/13/04
And it sounds like he's unprofessional to me...  TimeBomb | 08/14/04
It doesn't matter  NonZealot | 08/14/04
You're not a zealot????  Mack DaNife | 08/15/04
Finally, some quality stuff on ZDNet..!  Xunil_Sierutuf | 08/13/04
So do you only accept articles that match your point of view?  Linux_Developer | 08/13/04
We see the light  NonZealot | 08/13/04
Please stop joking...  TimeBomb | 08/14/04
Dude  nomorems | 08/16/04
Ummm, monoculture,  FilledOut | 08/15/04
MSZealot  nomorems | 08/16/04
Far too slanted to be taken seriously  Cerowyn | 08/13/04
i think he's basing it towards MS papers on TCO  Monkey_MCSE | 08/13/04
TCO to implement???  voska | 08/13/04
implement is just one of those grey words  hipparchus2000 | 08/13/04
Why not  seosamh_z | 08/13/04
Longhorn  nomorems | 08/16/04
TC0 not TCO  dhk | 08/14/04
Hmmm...  ITGuy04 | 08/16/04
Wow, productive  FilledOut | 08/14/04
ms needs to go back to making great OSs  V Sanders | 08/14/04
Odd way of putting it...  AmusedAtItAll | 08/14/04
Hey!  toadlife | 08/15/04
re: ms needs to go back to making great OSs  TtfnJohn | 08/14/04
SP2 INCLUDE Media player 9  balsover | 08/15/04
Scary  tripolitan | 08/15/04
Re:ms needs to go back to making great OSs  tripolitan | 08/15/04
"go back to"?!? It'd be good if they start.  hayesk | 08/15/04
Mac point of view  frabjous | 08/22/04
Article based on opinion not fact  EnterPrise_Analyst | 08/15/04
Do Windows users have a sense of humour?  hayesk | 08/15/04
Some 'anti-microsoft' people are taking it way too seriously  toadlife | 08/15/04
If the show were on the other foot  FilledOut | 08/16/04
Lower cost of total ownership? (nt)  Fred Fredrickson | 08/15/04
Watch those Microsofties squirm  whisperycat | 08/16/04
Your job will be in INDIA  Hamburger Chef | 08/16/04
TAKE THAT NO_AX!!!  itanalyst | 08/16/04
you are anti-American join Abul  Hamburger Chef | 08/16/04
What The Title Of The Article Was Supposed To Be Was This:  itanalyst | 08/16/04
INDIA will own you and YOUR JOB  Hamburger Chef | 08/16/04
Degreed India Hamburger Chef  Hamburger Chef | 08/16/04

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement
advertisement