Re: MS lying again about IE security

[Sermo Malifer <sermomalifer@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> Sermo Malifer wrote:
>
> > Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > Hash: SHA1
> > >
> > > ____/ Peter Köhlmann on Friday 30 January 2009 13:35 : \____
> > >
> > > > Microsofts Security Evangelist Jeff Jones was caught providing
> > > > doctored statistics about IE and Firefox, claiming IE was *better*
> > > >
> > > > Here is the breakdown of what really is the issue
> http://voices.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2009/01/blogfight_the_truth_about_ie_v.html
> > > Jeff Jones is a dunce <
> > > http://boycottnovell.com/2007/12/03/firefox-fud-latest/
> > > > whose output needs to be embargoed.
> > > He knows he's lying, but he's paid to do that.
> > >
> > > His class has the parity of Exxon-funded global warning deniers.
> > "In contrast, Jones appears to arrive at 285 days of vulnerability for
> > Firefox by focusing exclusively on flaws that were considered by Mozilla
> > and other security experts to be far less severe."
> >
> > I don't see any outright lying here, just a difference of opinion.
> The analysis he was answering to (about IE flaws) had only serious 
> security flaws taken into account.
According to each company's definition of what is a serious security 
flaw on their own software.  IOW, a difference of opinion.
> He either shares the wintendo users inability to read and understand 
> rather simple things (which is abundantly shown in COLA) or he was quite 
> disengenious, if not to say, outright dishonest
Or he wasn't as generous as Mozilla authors were in rating risks on 
their own software.