3 ms·
> Here are 2,300 CVEs in linux. I'm not sure you're being serious. Do you understand your list is comprised of CVEs that date way back in time as far as 2003?
by simplotek 4y ago
> Here are 2,300 CVEs in linux.
I'm not sure you're being serious. Do you understand your list is comprised of CVEs that date way back in time as far as 2003?
You're talking about an unfiltered, uncategorized list of reports that were published in last two decades.
At least a couple of entries from a decade ago referred to fixing kernel warnings.
And that's what you chose as the single best smoking gun to support your personal assertions on C?
- UncleMeat 4y agoI have no idea what you want. Will you give me a description of what sort of vuln counts as meaningful to you? First you complain about a single example. Then you complain about a list that is too wide (you can filter it if you want). How am I supposed to do anything useful if I have no idea what you want?
- simplotek 4y ago> I have no idea what you want. I want you to either substantiate your extraordinary claims regarding C's supposedly security issues along with your personal assertions regarding Linux supposedly being riddled with security vulnerabilities. So far you either desperately tried to avoid the questions or put up strawmen. Either you support your claims and present your rationale or your claims are proven to be nonsense. Nonsense links to 20 years worth of CVEs that boil down to an average of a few dozen random issues in a codebase of over 12M lines of code is complete nonsense, and showcases the exact opposite of your original claims, not to mention that most have zero to do with C at all. So exactly where do you base your personal assertion that C is somehow riddled with security issues? Nowhere? People like you need to either open your eyes and think through your baseless beliefs or stop being disingenuous. The world is very different than the bullshit claims that pops up in your Twitter feed.