www-commits
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

www/proprietary proprietary-insecurity.html


From: Ali Reza Hayati
Subject: www/proprietary proprietary-insecurity.html
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2021 12:32:10 -0400 (EDT)

CVSROOT:        /web/www
Module name:    www
Changes by:     Ali Reza Hayati <arh>   21/07/31 12:32:10

Modified files:
        proprietary    : proprietary-insecurity.html 

Log message:
        Minor edits to the text to avoid redundancy

CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/proprietary/proprietary-insecurity.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.173&r2=1.174

Patches:
Index: proprietary-insecurity.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/proprietary/proprietary-insecurity.html,v
retrieving revision 1.173
retrieving revision 1.174
diff -u -b -r1.173 -r1.174
--- proprietary-insecurity.html 31 Jul 2021 07:09:00 -0000      1.173
+++ proprietary-insecurity.html 31 Jul 2021 16:32:09 -0000      1.174
@@ -48,32 +48,25 @@
 </div>
 
 <div class="article">
-<p>This page lists clearly established cases of insecurity in
-proprietary software that has grave consequences or is otherwise
-noteworthy. Even though most of these security flaws are unintentional,
-thus are not malicious functionalities in a strict sense, we report
-them to show that proprietary software is not immune to bugs, and is
-  often quite sloppy.</p>
-
-<p>The point of this page is not to imply that free software is immune to
-bugs or insecurities; it's to show that <em>proprietary software has bugs
-    too</em>, and is not secure as mainstream media may say.</p>
-
-<p>Handling insecurities in free software is different from doing so in 
proprietary
-programs. Free software users are able to study the program and/or fix
-the bugs they find, often in communities as they are able to share the
-program, while proprietary program users are forced to rely on the
-  program's developer for fixes.</p>
-
-<p>If the developer does not care to fix the problem &mdash; often
-the case for embedded software and old releases &mdash; the users
-are sunk.  But if the developer does send a corrected version,
-it may contain new malicious functionalities as well as bug fixes.</p>
-
-<p>All complex programs, whether free or proprietary, contain bugs. What
-makes bugs more dangerous in proprietary software is that users are
-<em>helpless to fix any security problems that arise</em>. Keeping
-the users helpless is what's culpable about proprietary software.</p>
+<p>This page lists clearly established cases of insecurity in proprietary
+software that has grave consequences or is otherwise noteworthy. Even
+though most of these security flaws are unintentional, thus are not
+malicious functionalities in a strict sense, we report them to show that
+proprietary software is not as secure as mainstream media may say.</p>
+
+<p>This doesn't imply that free software is immune to bugs or insecurities.
+The difference between free and proprietary software in this respect is
+the handling of the bugs: free software users are able to study the
+program and/or fix the bugs they find, often in communities as they are
+able to share the program, while proprietary program users are forced to
+rely on the program's developer for fixes.</p>
+
+
+<p>If the developer does not care to fix the problem &mdash; often the case for
+embedded software and old releases &mdash; the users are sunk. But if the
+developer does send a corrected version, it may contain new malicious
+functionalities as well as bug fixes.</p>
+
 
 <div class="important">
 <p>If you know of an example that ought to be in this page but isn't
@@ -1212,7 +1205,7 @@
 
 <p class="unprintable">Updated:
 <!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2021/07/31 07:09:00 $
+$Date: 2021/07/31 16:32:09 $
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>
 </div>



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]