[Full-disclosure] Comments on: Browser patches yearn to be free
- From: n3td3v <xploitable@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 13:16:50 +0100
by n3td3v September 27, 2008 5:11 AM PDT
Once a month stops people getting confused, and allows people to
organize patch management better.
You know when the patches are due to be released, so you don't miss
any and get hacked when a hacker reverse engineers the patch.
If you just release patches on random days, folks might get caught off
guard and miss patching as quickly as they might want.
Also, third party patches are the most danergous patches, so its
better to know when the genuine patch is coming out.
I never agreed with the whole ZERT thing, its just encouraging the bad
guys to release third party patches which could be malware pretending
to be a patch.
Never accept third party patches, even if they are from ZERT, it sets
a bad precedence.
http://news.cnet.com/8601-13554_3-10052873.html?communityId=2032&targetCommunityId=2032&blogId=33&tag=mncol;tback#5009236
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
- Follow-Ups:
- Prev by Date: Re: [Full-disclosure] very strange emails (email 1/2) Fwd: Sorry I did not reply sooner
- Next by Date: Re: [Full-disclosure] To disclose or not to disclose
- Previous by thread: [Full-disclosure] To disclose or not to disclose
- Next by thread: Re: [Full-disclosure] [inbox] Comments on: Browser patches yearn to be free
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
