|
|
Flaws in arguments leave the uninf
Normally, I respect the news coming from The Inquirer, because Mike Magee tends to have very good access to a lot of people. I have to take issue with the report Software Vulnerabilities Still Dog Operating Systems though, because the report makes inappropriate conclusions based on a flawed measurement methodology. It does not take a rocket scientist to understand what I am about to say, so I hope the message is clear to all.<br /]
<br /]
The article, which appears to have good intentions, is nonetheless based upon a false premise. That premise is that the number of vulnerabilities reported to an organization is equivalent to the concept of being trustworthy. The fact is that the author has made an extrapolation to a conclusion that simply is not possible in the light of logic. While I applaud the effort to expose vulnerabilities in any system so that they are corrected, I would say that the author is incorrect in assuming that the sheer number of reported vulnerabilities has any direct correlation to the inherent security of the underlying Operating System itself. This is known as assuming causality where no direct correlation can be proven.
View the full article at http://www.osforge.com/news/001275.html
|
|
