1, leaning heavily on AI while learning to conceal that you didn't come up with the work or the answers. 2. getting good at telling someone or some AI precisely what result you want while not learning squat about the content of the problem. 3. etc. Should all qualify you for one role: manager.

Some people just are poor at remembering a face or putting it together with a name...and some get that way as they age. Could someone who realizes that they are starting to lose it wear the glasses so their problems would not be noticed so easily?

Proprietary service drops support for proprietary protocol..

Nope. That's why I changed all my players to BlueOS.

I replaced all my SONOS connects with BlueSound node Nano devices. A pricey replacement, but worth it.

As a bonus I was now able to turn off SMB1 on my home Samba server !

> Every large NAS vendor (Synology, QNAP, etc) has their own SMB server they wrote themserlves

That's untrue. Both Synology and QNAP use Samba. QNAP contributes code and bugfixes back to samba.org (Hi Jones !).

The upstream Linux kernel doesn't differentiate between security bugs and "normal" bug fixes. So the new kernel.org CNA just assigns CVE's to all fixes. They don't score them.

Look at the numbers from the whitepaper:

"In March 2024 there were 270 new CVEs created for the stable Linux kernel. So far in April 2024 there are 342 new CVEs:"

Yes ! That's exactly the point. Trying to curate and select patches for a "frozen" kernel fails due to the firehose of fixes going in upstream.

And in the kernel many of these could be security bugs. No one is doing evaluation on that, there are simply too many fixes in such a complex code base to check.

Oh that's really sad. I hope they use a more up to date version of Samba :-).

I don't see that argument in the blog or paper.

Did you read them ?

There are many more unfixed bugs in vendor kernels than in upstream. That's what the data shows.

You're missing something.

New bugs are discovered upstream, but the vendor kernel maintainers either aren't tracking, or are being discouraged from putting these back into the "frozen" kernel.

We even discovered one case where a RHEL maintainer fixed a bug upstream, but then neglected to apply it to the vulnerable vendor kernel. So it isn't like they didn't know about the bug. Maybe they just didn't check the vendor kernel was vulnerable.

I'm guessing management policy discouraged such things. It's easier to just ignore such bugs if customer haven't noticed.

Gordon, Gordon, don't you ever get tired of your obsession ?

"Towards thee I roll, thou all-destroying but unconquering whale; to the last I grapple with thee; from hellâ(TM)s heart I stab at thee; for hateâ(TM)s sake I spit my last breath at thee."

Very astute comment. The white paper shows that the frozen "vendor" kernel model really doesn't work. And if people can't / won't upgrade then maybe alternative security precautions around a known insecure kernel is the best we can do.