[spydum]

a lot of people kicking sand in MSFT's eyes for having such a vulnerability.. but come on, the code base for windows is enormous. The feat of engineering that is microsoft windows (and its many iterations) is pretty amazing when you really look at it. Yes, plenty of flaws, but show me some other software which has endured?

Further, all of the major infections are based on Windows XP. Windows XP mainstream support ended a full year before the first gen iPhone was out! It's seriously ancient and there are very few excuses for people to have this crap on a network in 2017. For the folks who dont run XP, but got infected because they didn't patch? No excuses.

If I booted a RedHat (5.2 came out in 2009ish) or FreeBSD machine from 2009 without patches, and put it on the internet, I'm pretty sure it'd be hosed just as bad (shellshock, heartbleed, ?). the difference is, everyone would tell me I'm an idiot for putting a machine online from 2009.

[merlincorey]

> If I booted a RedHat (5.2 came out in 2009ish) or FreeBSD machine from 2009 without patches, and put it on the internet, I'm pretty sure it'd be hosed just as bad (shellshock, heartbleed, ?). the difference is, everyone would tell me I'm an idiot for putting a machine online from 2009.

As a tongue in cheek (but totally true) correction, FreeBSD from 2009 would NOT be vulnerable to the shellshock vulnerability unless you explicitly install `bash` and make it the shell used by apache-cgi.

By default, FreeBSD lacks bash.

[alex_anglin]

True, but FreeBSD can't guarantee perpetual security for releases. It also doesn't provide warranties, like the majority of software out there.

FWIW, I do hold FreeBSD in high regard. It's just that expecting perfection security-wise from complex systems is a fools errand.

[asdfgadsfgasfdg]

> It's just that expecting perfection security-wise from complex systems is a fools errand.

I think that may have been the OP's point. Bash is more complex than sh has to be hence because FreeBSD choose the simpler option they avoid the inherent security implications of complex systems.

(I use bash myself and don't use FreeBSD.)

[dotancohen]

Exactly, FreeBSD uses the simplest solution for the task, in the name of security. FreeBSD isn't "secure from Heartbleed because they don't use Bash" but rather, FreeBSD is "secure because by default only the most basic, necessary software is installed" which happened to be sh instead of bash.