On 9/13/06, Chris Zakelj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > bofh wrote: > > Bad comparison. MSFT's patches are across an entire product line. You > are > > talking about one specific product here. In order to get a valid > > comparison, you will have to count patches for a product of similar size > and > > complexity. Which, if my memory serves me right, is actually smaller > than > > phpbb's track record, which actually supports Adam's stance that phpbb > is > > insecure. > > > No, I am counting *ONLY* Windows XP. I don't run Office, SQL Server, or
Shouldn't you compare windows xp to openbsd (ok, + xwindows and your choice of manager)? I look at phpbb more like IIS. How many vulnerabilities/patches in the same time period you counted 1 patch/2 months for phpbb? any other MSFT product on my gaming machine. It's bad enough just > having to deal with that much. > > That may be. It is still not secure. We are talking about security, > not > > ease of patching, or following patch releases. > I never said it was secure. In fact, I distinctly recall saying "hell > no" to whether or not I considered phpBB secure. What I *did* say was > that it fit my needs, as I laid them out. > Which is "good" to you, but probably isn't "good" to people who are specifically interested in OpenBSD for it's security stance.
