Skip to main content Microsoft Defender Microsoft Entra Microsoft Intune Microsoft Purview Microsoft Security Copilot Microsoft Sentinel View all products AI-powered cybersecurity Cloud security Data security & governance Identity & network access Privacy & risk management Security for AI Small and medium business Unified SecOps Zero Trust Pricing Services Partners Why Microsoft Security Cybersecurity awareness Customer stories Security 101 Product trials How we protect Microsoft Industry recognition Microsoft Security Insider Microsoft Digital Defense Report Security Response Center Microsoft Security Blog Microsoft Security Events Microsoft Tech Community Documentation Technical Content Library Training & certifications Compliance Program for Microsoft Cloud Microsoft Trust Center Security Engineering Portal Service Trust Portal Microsoft Secure Future Initiative Business Solutions Hub Contact Sales Start free trial Microsoft Security Azure Dynamics 365 Microsoft 365 Microsoft Teams Windows 365 Microsoft AI Azure Space Mixed reality Microsoft HoloLens Microsoft Viva Quantum computing Sustainability Education Automotive Financial services Government Healthcare Manufacturing Retail Find a partner Become a partner Partner Network Microsoft Marketplace Software companies Blog Microsoft Advertising Developer Center Documentation Events Licensing Microsoft Learn Microsoft Research View Sitemap
  • News
  • 1 min read

Washington Post – A Time to Patch III: Apple


You’ve probably already read Brian Krebs article A Time to Patch III: Apple, but if you haven’t, I encourage you to read it and read the various responses he received – the responses run the gamut of

  • Linux advocates (“You do understand that Mac OS X is not a version of Linux, and is not an open source OS in the usual sense of the word?”),
  • conspiracy theorists (“…This sounds much more like Microsoft propaganda…”),
  • open source advocates (“… finally pointing out that Apple is a company that’s even more protective of its intellecual property than Microsoft …”)
  • existentialists (“… In fact, I have been using Macintoshes heavily since 1984 and I’ve never had a single security problem.”)
  • allegoricists (“…Potentially, an envelope I lick to seal could have LSD on it.”)
  • poor analogies (“…Over the years in a far away country, fires have increasingly ravaged …”)
  • better analogies (“…Imagine someone traveling to a small town and learning …”)

and many, many more.  Good reading and entertaining at the same time.  Brian even provides spreadsheets with his data and links to sources.

When I read this, I thought to myself “What if this article was about Microsoft?” – would the responses have been different?  “What if the article was about Linux?”  Sun?  Oracle?  I think it is clear from the emotional responses that the data matters less to some people than their belief system – and that’s not good for security!

Here’s the question I ask myself.  If I had one system that housed my critical business information (say customer credit cards) and I believed there were attackers who might target me to get that information, then wouldn’t I want to know how many vulnerabilities there are and how long a vendor might leave them unpatched?  I would.  If I was basing a 5-10 year business decision in part on security criteria, I certainly would (among many other things…). 

Of course, I would also consider the threat of a virus and the threat of a targeted attack as two discrete risk issues and not muddle them together… but that’s for another day.

Related posts