the_wizard_man said:
So they are suppossed to update immedately regardless of what actually changes were made in the software? I can see companeis expoilting that by mkaing pointless updates, oh wait MS already does, anyways I don't know if it's negligence or not to me that doesn't seem that bad considering the costs involved, I can see a company only upgrading every year but again I don't know what the industry standards are and I suspect neither do you |
Assumptions can be dangerous. I work in the software industry, with a decent amount of experience with the open source community.
There is a well-known fact about open source software such as Apache: the fixes to exploits happen very quickly once discovered, but in order for this to happen, the exploit must be made public in order for the explot to be replicated (to see if it's fixed when it's coded up). so it's a matter of keeping up with the community, because that's also where the hackers get their information. It's the lazy, negligent companies that end up getting slammed with known exploits.
I refer you to a post made in http://httpd.apache.org/
| Apache HTTP Server 2.2.17 Released | 2010-10-19 |
|
This was the second update that Sony missed on it's authorization server. As you can see, some exploits have been fixed with a refactoring of the Authentication/Authorization protocol. You will also notice that this is dated October 19th of 2010. Sony didn't even have 2.2.16, letalone 2.2.17. They had 2.2.15. The exploit could have been delivered by anoyone browsing the Apache forums on what bugfixes were made to meet the 2.2.16 or 2.2.17 release.
In the terms of frequency, many financial institutions as well as places that store sensitive information, make it (at least) a daily occurance to frequent the sites that deliver this critical news. It's not like the news is scarce, either, I frequent several sites in order to keep up with recent changes in software. It's my job to do so.







