• Comprehensive current zero-day platform comparisons?

    From Marion@21:1/5 to All on Wed Jun 11 18:29:39 2025
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone, alt.comp.os.windows-11

    I try to UNDERSTAND the security implications of each platform,
    irrespective of the (admittedly brilliant) marketing propaganda.

    Do you know of any comprehensive current zero-day platform comparisons?

    The best I could find is this reliable GTIG blog, published in May 2025.
    <https://cloud.google.com/blog/topics/threat-intelligence/2024-zero-day-trends>

    75 known-to-be exploited 0-days disclosed in 2024 across all platforms.
    9 were on mobile devices, and 66 were not.

    4 were in Android (plus 3 which were in 3rd-party components)
    2 were in iOS (plus 3 in WebKit, which is part of iOS & macOS)

    22 were in Microsoft Windows (plus 7 in chrome and 1 in Firefox)

    What's interesting is that iOS and Android are roughly about half a dozen
    while Windows has roughly 4 times the number of zero-day exploits in 2024.

    What other comparative data are you aware of so that we all get a better current picture of the zero-day exploits (in the wild) between platforms?

    Unfortunately, there's overlap (e.g., in the browsers) so I'm not sure
    where the other 33 known zero-day exploits in the wild were found but the
    blog mentions 44% of 2024 zero-days targeted 18 unique enterprise products, which is just about 33. Also the blog says 20 zero-days were found in
    security & network appliances (which can be part of Enterprise Products).

    So... probably...
    33 were found in 18 unique Enterprise Products (including appliances)

    Outside of misleading (but brilliant) marketing, do you have better data?
    --
    Note these GTIG counts DIFFER from CISA KEV catalog *cumulative* zero days, where iOS has about 1-1/2 times more zero-days exploited than Android does.
    <https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog>

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tyrone@21:1/5 to Marion on Wed Jun 11 23:43:58 2025
    XPost: alt.comp.os.windows-11, misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On Jun 11, 2025 at 2:29:39 PM EDT, "Marion" <[email protected]> wrote:

    75 known-to-be exploited 0-days disclosed in 2024 across all platforms.
    9 were on mobile devices, and 66 were not.

    4 were in Android (plus 3 which were in 3rd-party components)
    2 were in iOS (plus 3 in WebKit, which is part of iOS & macOS)

    No, Webkit is NOT part of iOS and MacOS. But hey, nice attempt to equalize
    the numbers.

    Interesting how you just gloss over the fact that Android had more 0-days in 2024 than iOS. When for MONTHS you have been loudly claiming that "iOS is the most insecure OS ever".

    And Oh Look At This. A FACT that you did not bother to list here from the
    same "reliable GTIG blog" that YOU quoted. iOS had 9 0-days in 2023 and 2
    (yes 2, they do NOT count the 3 in Webkit as "Part of iOS") in 2024. While Android remained the same in both years at 7. Did Google not fix any of the 2023 0-days? Or did they have 7 new 0-days in 2024? Either way, in 2024 iOS was WAY more secure than Android.

    Also, Safari had 11 0-days in 2023 and 3 in 2024. Chrome had 6 in 2023 and 7
    in 2024. Again, in 2024 Safari was WAY more secure than Chrome.

    In FACT, Safari and iOS were the only products that had fewer (far fewer actually) 0-days in 2024 than in 2023. Every other product in the category
    went up or stayed the same.

    Yes, these numbers could easily change in 2025. And who cares anyway? But
    will you now admit that, in 2024 at least, Apple was clearly the secure
    choice? After all, I can admit that in 2023 Android was clearly the secure choice!

    Because you see, unlike you, I have no emotional attachment to any of this. I can deal with facts just fine. It's just hard for you to see that because you rarely present any facts.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Marion@21:1/5 to Tyrone on Thu Jun 12 06:58:08 2025
    XPost: alt.comp.os.windows-11, misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 23:43:58 +0000, Tyrone wrote :


    On Jun 11, 2025 at 2:29:39 PM EDT, "Marion" <[email protected]> wrote:

    75 known-to-be exploited 0-days disclosed in 2024 across all platforms.
    9 were on mobile devices, and 66 were not.

    4 were in Android (plus 3 which were in 3rd-party components)
    2 were in iOS (plus 3 in WebKit, which is part of iOS & macOS)

    No, Webkit is NOT part of iOS and MacOS. But hey, nice attempt to equalize the numbers.

    Hi Tyrone,
    You know networking better than I do, so I appreciate that you know stuff,
    even as you always tirelessly defend Apple to the death, no matter what.

    I'm both a scientist & and engineer so I take any reliable information into account when I form assessments, which can change based on the data set.

    For you to claim "Webkit is not part of iOS or macOS" is kind of strange,
    but from your (skewed, always defending Apple) perspective, I can easily understand how you might want the appreciable amount of WebKit zero-day
    holes to "just go away" and not be counted.

    However, when I refer to 'WebKit holes' in the context of 'iOS', I'm not implying that WebKit is an external component to iOS. Instead, I'm
    referring to zero-day holes within the WebKit rendering engine, which is a fundamental and integral part of iOS. As even you ignorant Apple trolls
    must be aware, WebKit is the engine that powers Safari on iOS, and it's
    also used by many other apps that display web content. So, any hole in
    WebKit directly impacts the functionality and user experience on iOS.

    Therefore, when we're assessing the overall zero-day landscape for iOS,
    it's crucial to include WebKit holes because they directly affect how web content is rendered and interacted with on the operating system. You can't really have a functional iOS web experience without WebKit, so its
    stability and bug count are directly relevant to the quality of iOS itself.

    But good try nonetheless, as you Apple trolls are desperate to find excuses
    for why Apple's (rather brilliant) marketing on security never pans out in reality.

    Interesting how you just gloss over the fact that Android had more 0-days in 2024 than iOS. When for MONTHS you have been loudly claiming that "iOS is the most insecure OS ever".

    Since I'm both a well-educated scientist & engineer, I always will agree
    with any rationally stated logical sensible viewpoint, Tyrone.

    Hence, it's interesting that you bring up the excellent point that I've
    always stated that the CISA KEV catalog always shows the iOS zero-day
    exploit count to be hugely greater than Android (by about 1-1/2 times greater!).

    As of today, a quick look at the CISA KEV catalog shows that searching for "iOS" yields significantly more known exploits than "Android."
    (A quick filter shows around 108 known exploits in the wild for iOS/iPadOS/watchOS/macOS vs 73 for Android, including Samsung exploits.)

    That means, cumulatively iOS had about 1-1/2 more exploits than Android,
    which is exactly what I've been saying all along, Tyrone.

    So you and I both agree that iOS has vastly more exploits than Android.
    <https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog>

    Bear in mind, since you're NOT a scientist, nor an engineer, you don't
    appear to comprehend that there's a difference between the CISA cumulative zero-day exploit count and the GTIG one-year zero-day count.

    a. Different time frame
    b. Different measurement of zero-days
    (i.e., one is zero-day count in a year, the other cumulative exploits)

    You're an Apple troll, so, given you have no education, you're not expected
    to understand how to interpret commonly available 0-day data.

    The reason you don't understand the difference between a yearly snapshot
    and a cumulative total can be summarized by understanding your abilities.

    You're an Apple troll.
    So, of course you do not understand the difference.
    a. You have no education to speak of
    b. You are a herd animal who believes in Apple's (brilliant) propaganda
    c. And you are a religious zealot, who defends Apple to the death

    So, of course... you don't understand any data that conflicts with what
    Apple has (brilliantly) fed you to believe.

    You *hate* that Apple lied to you by saying they put you in the walled
    prison garden to make you safer - when - clearly - you're NOT safer.

    In fact, to this very day, iOS has had 1-1/2 times more zero-day exploits
    than Android, even as last years' zero-days were roughly about the same.

    And Oh Look At This. A FACT that you did not bother to list here from the same "reliable GTIG blog" that YOU quoted. iOS had 9 0-days in 2023 and 2 (yes 2, they do NOT count the 3 in Webkit as "Part of iOS") in 2024.

    Tyrone... you can't make WebKit 0-days "just go away" by wishful thinking.

    While
    Android remained the same in both years at 7. Did Google not fix any of the 2023 0-days? Or did they have 7 new 0-days in 2024? Either way, in 2024 iOS was WAY more secure than Android.

    I realize you're an Apple troll so you're desperate to excused the fact
    that Apple's "security propaganda" never matches the reality, but that one
    blog doesn't even try to count *all* the zero-days in 2023 for either iOS
    or for Android.

    The blog says "Of the 37 zero-day vulnerabilities in browsers and mobile devices exploited in 2023, we attributed over 60 percent to CSVs that sell spyware capabilities to government customers", so we need to account for at least 37 zero-day holes in both iOS and Android (assuming the browsers are mobile device browsers, of course).

    Therefore, while a specific count for Android and iOS individually isn't explicitly stated for 2023, the data indicates a higher number than the
    2024 figures of 7 Android and 2 iOS, especially considering the broader category of "browsers and mobile devices" had 37 zero-days in 2023.

    Also, Safari had 11 0-days in 2023 and 3 in 2024. Chrome had 6 in 2023 and 7 in 2024. Again, in 2024 Safari was WAY more secure than Chrome.

    Tyrone... you can't make WebKit 0-days "just go away" by wishful thinking.

    In FACT, Safari and iOS were the only products that had fewer (far fewer actually) 0-days in 2024 than in 2023. Every other product in the category went up or stayed the same.

    Yes, these numbers could easily change in 2025. And who cares anyway? But will you now admit that, in 2024 at least, Apple was clearly the secure choice? After all, I can admit that in 2023 Android was clearly the secure choice!

    Because you see, unlike you, I have no emotional attachment to any of this. I can deal with facts just fine. It's just hard for you to see that because you
    rarely present any facts.

    I own both platforms, Tyrone. You misread my intent on publishing facts.
    What I hate are lies.

    Apple only tells the truth, in court, and even now, Apple is currently
    being considered for a criminal charge of brazenly lying to the court.

    What I dislike are the lies. And human sheep *believing* those lies.
    a. I dislike when Apple lies
    b. I dislike when Google lies
    c. I dislike when Microsoft lies

    Hell, I dislike when Gavin Newsom said yesterday that Trump lies (which is true) but Gavin also lies (when he said the fires were caused by global
    warming when I saw the lightning bolts that caused those fires on a Sunday
    and NOT A SINGL FIREFIGHTER arrived to fight them until Wednesday!).

    The problem you see me illustrating is that you *believe* Apple put you
    into the walled prison garden for security - when - in fact - there is no security when you look at the proof - which is in the taste of the pudding.

    Notice that iOS zero-days in 2024 were slightly less but about the same as Android zero-days - which I gladly report because I'm not beholden to a narrative other than the narrative which is the truth.

    Facts are my truth.
    Not Apple propaganda.

    If Apple put you into that walled prison garden for 'security', why are iOS cumulative zero-day exploits 1-1/2 times those of Android, Tyrone?

    And, if you suffer that walled prison garden for "security" reasons, why
    are the 2024 Apple zero-days not appreciably smaller than Android (which doesn't force you into the walled prison garden)?

    The answer is obvious.
    Apple lied.

    The proof is in the facts.
    Give me more facts if you want me to change my assessment, Tyrone.

    I'll change my mind on a dime (like any good scientist or engineer would),
    if you provide reliable facts - which is what this thread is asking for.

    To everyone:
    What other platform-comparisons of zero-day holes are you aware of?

    1. <https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog>
    2. <https://cloud.google.com/blog/topics/threat-intelligence/2024-zero-day-trends>
    3. ?

    We need facts; not lies.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul@21:1/5 to Chris on Fri Jun 13 06:00:24 2025
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone, alt.comp.os.windows-11

    On Fri, 6/13/2025 3:31 AM, Chris wrote:
    Marion <[email protected]> wrote:


    I'm both a scientist & and engineer

    Lol. There's plenty of evidence demonstrating you're no scientist.

    You have a single world view and will only look for "facts" (sic) which
    only support that position. You also have no interest in doing your own analyses. Your only research tool is google.

    Almost everything you state is an untestable assertion as you don't show
    your workings -links to discussion threads are not methods- to allow peer review. Whenever people do challenge your assertions you make ad hominem attacks rather than use the corrections to improve your hypothesis.


    The first problem, is the hypothesis is wrong.

    No conclusions can be reached, by counting the CVE.

    It's because the CVE step is an intermediate one. It
    does not measure the value of the ecosystem to the users.

    It's how many users are tipped over or exploited that counts.
    And no data for that, is available. Merely marketing
    summaries, intended to sell AV kits. Yards and yards of FUD.

    The Software Quality Institute used to hand out ratings
    to companies, for their defects per KLOC. What's amazing,
    is the defect rate between a "good" company and a "bad"
    company is only a factor of three. I was shocked! It
    means there is shit everywhere, and there is basically
    nothing you can do about it.

    Since the defectivity is proportional to KLOC (defects
    per thousand lines of code), about all you can do in an
    OS, is cut down the lines of source, the number of SVCHOST,
    the unnecessary subsystems, and so on. No OS today, takes
    such an approach seriously, because such an OS would be
    "disadvantaged in the marketplace". Nobody would buy it
    because of the spartan nature of the product.

    CVEs are proportional to the amount of money spent
    to generate them. Offer a reward for bugs ? Get more CVE.
    What's that ? The CVE only happen when a Black Hat is
    in the room ? Nature of the game. Not all CVEs are
    worth the paper they are printed on. Even the ratings
    are (somewhat) suspect, as to whether something is
    an "8" or a "10".

    It's just not a productive use of anyones time, to be
    using a CVE for this purpose. A CVE is a communications
    tool, for communication between professionals.

    Let's take as an example, the Temple OS. How many
    CVEs have been filed for the Temple OS ? Why, zero.
    Ipsofacto, the OS is perfection! It must be better
    than all of the others! Of course, no one is being
    paid to find bugs in it.

    Paul

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Daniel70@21:1/5 to Paul on Fri Jun 13 21:17:32 2025
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone, alt.comp.os.windows-11

    On 13/06/2025 8:00 pm, Paul wrote:
    On Fri, 6/13/2025 3:31 AM, Chris wrote:
    Marion <[email protected]> wrote:

    I'm both a scientist & and engineer

    Lol. There's plenty of evidence demonstrating you're no scientist.

    You have a single world view and will only look for "facts" (sic) which
    only support that position. You also have no interest in doing your own
    analyses. Your only research tool is google.

    Almost everything you state is an untestable assertion as you don't show
    your workings -links to discussion threads are not methods- to allow peer
    review. Whenever people do challenge your assertions you make ad hominem
    attacks rather than use the corrections to improve your hypothesis.

    The first problem, is the hypothesis is wrong.

    No conclusions can be reached, by counting the CVE.

    It's because the CVE step is an intermediate one. It
    does not measure the value of the ecosystem to the users.

    It's how many users are tipped over or exploited that counts.
    And no data for that, is available. Merely marketing
    summaries, intended to sell AV kits. Yards and yards of FUD.

    The Software Quality Institute used to hand out ratings
    to companies, for their defects per KLOC. What's amazing,
    is the defect rate between a "good" company and a "bad"
    company is only a factor of three. I was shocked! It
    means there is shit everywhere, and there is basically
    nothing you can do about it.

    Since the defectivity is proportional to KLOC (defects
    per thousand lines of code), about all you can do in an
    OS, is cut down the lines of source, the number of SVCHOST,
    the unnecessary subsystems, and so on. No OS today, takes
    such an approach seriously, because such an OS would be
    "disadvantaged in the marketplace". Nobody would buy it
    because of the spartan nature of the product.

    CVEs are proportional to the amount of money spent
    to generate them. Offer a reward for bugs ? Get more CVE.
    What's that ? The CVE only happen when a Black Hat is
    in the room ? Nature of the game. Not all CVEs are
    worth the paper they are printed on. Even the ratings
    are (somewhat) suspect, as to whether something is
    an "8" or a "10".

    It's just not a productive use of anyones time, to be
    using a CVE for this purpose. A CVE is a communications
    tool, for communication between professionals.

    Let's take as an example, the Temple OS. How many
    CVEs have been filed for the Temple OS ? Why, zero.
    Ipsofacto, the OS is perfection! It must be better
    than all of the others! Of course, no one is being
    paid to find bugs in it.

    Paul

    .... or no one is using it .... so no fault are being found!! ;-P
    --
    Daniel70

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Marion@21:1/5 to Paul on Fri Jun 13 14:39:22 2025
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone, alt.comp.os.windows-11

    On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 06:00:24 -0400, Paul wrote :


    It's because the CVE step is an intermediate one. It
    does not measure the value of the ecosystem to the users.

    It's how many users are tipped over or exploited that counts.
    And no data for that, is available.

    I always (almost always?) agree with Paul since he makes sensible
    statements that are based on logic and facts.

    The whole point of this thread is to *ask* for better measurements.

    All we know, so far, based on the reliable facts, is:
    a. Windows has the vast majority of (known) zero-days overall
    b. Apple's iOS has had 1-1/2 times as many exploited 0-days as Android
    c. Android (all makes) had about the same number of 0-days as iOS in 2024

    That's good reliable factual comparative information, but we need more.
    Outside of misleading (but brilliant) marketing, do you have better data?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Marion@21:1/5 to Chris on Fri Jun 13 15:14:28 2025
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone, alt.comp.os.windows-11

    On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 12:18:40 +0100, Chris wrote :


    But no, he's a keyboard warrior, with no interest in accuracy nor
    effort. The number of posts/month �� effort.

    Chris,

    You claim the CISA report is not reliable?
    What planet do you live on?

    You claim the GTIG report is not reliable?
    What planet do you live on?

    For you to claim reliable reports are unreliable, is what Apple trolls do.

    Face the facts, Chris: Those reports are reliable.

    We just need more data to make more accurate assessments.
    Where's *your* data backing up your brazen denials of those reports?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to Marion on Fri Jun 13 07:55:32 2025
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone, alt.comp.os.windows-11

    On 2025-06-13 07:39, Marion wrote:
    On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 06:00:24 -0400, Paul wrote :


    It's because the CVE step is an intermediate one. It
    does not measure the value of the ecosystem to the users.

    It's how many users are tipped over or exploited that counts.
    And no data for that, is available.

    I always (almost always?) agree with Paul since he makes sensible
    statements that are based on logic and facts.

    The whole point of this thread is to *ask* for better measurements.

    All we know, so far, based on the reliable facts, is:
    a. Windows has the vast majority of (known) zero-days overall
    b. Apple's iOS has had 1-1/2 times as many exploited 0-days as Android
    c. Android (all makes) had about the same number of 0-days as iOS in 2024

    1. "Android (all makes)"?

    2. How are b. and c. not in direct contradiction with each other; that
    is, unless the number of 0-days is zero?

    :-)


    That's good reliable factual comparative information, but we need more. Outside of misleading (but brilliant) marketing, do you have better data?

    Like the "good reliable factual comparative information" that iOS cannot possibly have an app that lets you use it as an SMB server?

    Like the "good reliable factual comparative information" that everyone
    in road racing talks about catenary curves?

    :-)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to Marion on Fri Jun 13 10:49:45 2025
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone, alt.comp.os.windows-11

    On 2025-06-13 08:14, Marion wrote:
    On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 12:18:40 +0100, Chris wrote :


    But no, he's a keyboard warrior, with no interest in accuracy nor
    effort. The number of posts/month Ёк effort.

    Chris,

    You claim the CISA report is not reliable?
    What planet do you live on?

    What thread are you reading...

    ...because he said nothing like that.


    You claim the GTIG report is not reliable?
    What planet do you live on?

    What thread are you reading...

    ...because he said nothing like that.

    For you to claim reliable reports are unreliable, is what Apple trolls do.

    For you to claim he claimed reliable ports are unreliable...

    ...is just a lie.


    Face the facts, Chris: Those reports are reliable.

    Face the facts, Marion/Andrew/Arlen/...:

    You're a sad little man.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to Chris on Fri Jun 13 17:40:01 2025
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone, alt.comp.os.windows-11

    On 2025-06-13 17:05, Chris wrote:
    Marion <[email protected]> wrote:
    On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 12:18:40 +0100, Chris wrote :


    But no, he's a keyboard warrior, with no interest in accuracy nor
    effort. The number of posts/month ،ع effort.

    Chris,

    You claim the CISA report is not reliable?
    What planet do you live on?

    You claim the GTIG report is not reliable?
    What planet do you live on?

    For you to claim reliable reports are unreliable, is what Apple trolls do. >>
    Face the facts, Chris: Those reports are reliable.

    We just need more data to make more accurate assessments.
    Where's *your* data backing up your brazen denials of those reports?

    You didn't read Paul's post, did you?


    He never does.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Marion@21:1/5 to Chris on Sat Jun 14 01:18:22 2025
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone, alt.comp.os.windows-11

    On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 00:05:18 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote :


    You didn't read Paul's post, did you?

    Chris,

    I'm a scientist and engineer. I thrive on reliable reported facts.
    You're an Apple troll. You thrive on baseless (brilliant) propaganda.

    a. That means you *hate* all reliable facts about Apple products
    b. Because facts don't agree with your baseless Apple propaganda

    The CISA report is reliable, as is the GTIG report, Chris.

    For you to claim those reports don't agree with Apple marketing propaganda
    is typical of you Apple trolls who know not of facts, but of marketing.

    Paul is not stupid, Chris.
    I'm not stupid.

    We both know EXACTLY what the reports say.

    And what they show is, poignantly, despite Apple claiming iOS sealed you up
    in the walled prison garden "for your safety", there is no safety.

    You defer to Apple propaganda to make your decisions on safety, Chris.
    I refer to facts.

    Big difference.

    This thread states the facts.
    And this thread asks for better facts.

    For you to claim all facts which make a fool of Apple marketing propaganda can't be facts simply because facts don't agree with propaganda, is absurd.

    Unless you have actual facts to offer, the reliable facts show...
    a. Windows has the vast majority of (known) zero-days overall
    b. Apple's iOS has had 1-1/2 times as many exploited 0-days as Android
    c. Android (all makes) had about the same number of 0-days as iOS in 2024

    Prove that wrong - with facts, Chris.
    Don't give us more of your baseless Apple religious fundamentalism.

    Give us facts.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Marion@21:1/5 to Chris on Sat Jun 14 19:58:15 2025
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone, alt.comp.os.windows-11

    On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 14:40:37 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote :


    why not actually address Paul's comments?

    The CISA report is reliable, as is the GTIG report, Chris.
    Nobody claims they are not reliable - least of which is Paul.

    Only you claimed that these aren't facts, Chris. Not Paul. Just you.
    You *hate* every fact about Apple because Apple lied to you, Chris.

    Apple told you they locked you into the walled prison garden for your
    safety, but the proof is that you're no safer than Android, Chris.

    You have had 1-1/2 times the number of exploited zero days than Android.
    Apple lied to you.

    Don't get mad at me for telling you the facts that Apple didn't tell you.

    You can't claim all facts are wrong just because Apple lied to you, Chris.
    It's your fault for believing Apple's lies.

    These are the facts:
    <https://cloud.google.com/blog/topics/threat-intelligence/2024-zero-day-trends>
    <https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog>

    If you have *better* facts, that's what this thread is asking for.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to Marion on Sat Jun 14 13:17:17 2025
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone, alt.comp.os.windows-11

    On 2025-06-14 12:58, Marion wrote:
    On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 14:40:37 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote :


    why not actually address Paul's comments?

    The CISA report is reliable, as is the GTIG report, Chris.
    Nobody claims they are not reliable - least of which is Paul.

    Only you claimed that these aren't facts, Chris. Not Paul. Just you.
    You *hate* every fact about Apple because Apple lied to you, Chris.

    Chris made no such claims.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Kerr-Mudd, John@21:1/5 to Alan on Sun Jun 15 08:35:04 2025
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone, alt.comp.os.windows-11

    On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 13:17:17 -0700
    Alan <[email protected]> wrote:

    On 2025-06-14 12:58, Marion wrote:
    On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 14:40:37 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote :


    why not actually address Paul's comments?

    The CISA report is reliable, as is the GTIG report, Chris.
    Nobody claims they are not reliable - least of which is Paul.

    Only you claimed that these aren't facts, Chris. Not Paul. Just you.
    You *hate* every fact about Apple because Apple lied to you, Chris.

    Chris made no such claims.

    Why do you still argue with this obvious anti-apple poster? If you
    must, please cut the xposts.

    --
    Bah, and indeed Humbug.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Marion@21:1/5 to Chris on Sun Jun 15 19:35:39 2025
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 09:40:42 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote :


    The CISA report is reliable, as is the GTIG report, Chris.
    Nobody claims they are not reliable - least of which is Paul.

    Is that it?!

    These are facts, Chris, not assertions:
    <https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog>
    <https://cloud.google.com/blog/topics/threat-intelligence/2024-zero-day-trends>

    For you to call those facts mere assertions, is what Apple trolls do.

    Paul didn't mention reliability. He was talking about
    interpretation. Which is always your weakness. You try to infer/imply
    claims which are unsupported by the data.

    I love Paul but the fact is that Paul doesn't have any better data.
    Nor do you.
    Neither do I.

    If any of us had better data, then that's what we'd be discussing.

    Only you claimed that these aren't facts, Chris. Not Paul. Just you.
    You *hate* every fact about Apple because Apple lied to you, Chris.

    I made no such claim. Why do you always insist in lying?

    Then you agree that the CISA report shows that cumulatively iOS has about
    1-1/2 times the total number of known zero-day exploits than Android has.

    If Apple locked you into that walled prison garden "for your safety", why
    do you have 1-1/2 times the number of known zero day exploits in iOS?

    Where is that safety you paid so dearly for in lost functionality?

    The only facts I (and everyone else) deny are your so-called "facts". They are baseless assertions.

    For you to claim the CISA report is a baseless assertion is absurd.
    Likewise with the GTIG data.

    Why don't you just admit that you *hate* iOS having no safety in terms of zero-day bugs compared to Android (but it is safer than Windows is).

    Why must you call all facts that you hate to be assertions?

    These are facts, Chris, not assertions:
    <https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog>
    <https://cloud.google.com/blog/topics/threat-intelligence/2024-zero-day-trends>

    For you to call those facts mere assertions, is what Apple trolls do.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Marion@21:1/5 to Chris on Tue Jun 17 14:47:13 2025
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 18:34:37 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote :


    You've been claiming this for many months, if not years, so it'll be easy
    for you. Note: referring to your own baseless threads is not evidence.

    The facts are in the links in those threads, and, it's not June 20th yet.

    I said I'd remain silent until at least then, when the data is
    incontrovertible (since Apple can change things up to that date).

    And I'll report what we find in *that* thread (where it belongs).
    Like I said I would.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Marion@21:1/5 to Chris on Tue Jun 17 14:39:49 2025
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 12:34:54 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote :


    These are facts, Chris, not assertions:
    <https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog>
    <https://cloud.google.com/blog/topics/threat-intelligence/2024-zero-day-trends>

    No. Those are URLs.

    C'mon Chris. That's what Apple trolls do.
    They constantly claim facts are just a jumble of alphanumeric characters.

    To Apple trolls, this link isn't a document of facts. It's just a URL.
    <https://thehackernews.com/2025/04/google-reports-75-zero-days-exploited.html>

    That's an absurd position to take, Chris.
    By your reasoning, facts can't exist on the Internet.

    Because a URL pointing to the raw facts is just a jumble of characters.
    Which is an astoundingly absurd position you are taking.

    Now... having said that, I do get your point which is that it's raw data.
    Sure. It's raw data.

    But it's good raw data.

    One resolves to an incomplete for many reasons catalogue. The other to a
    blog post of an analysis by an expert group.

    Chris - you claim to have earned a PhD for God's sake.
    You never heard of a bibliography?

    Try this 2021 bibliography entry:
    <https://citizenlab.ca/publications/>
    "Citizen Lab's body of work is the gold standard for identifying
    and dissecting state-sponsored zero-day exploits, especially
    against iOS (though they find Android ones too). Their reports
    are meticulously researched, detailed, and often involve reverse
    engineering of actual zero-day exploits. They reveal how many
    specific, critical zero-days were found and exploited on iOS
    devices (e.g., their "FORCEDENTRY" or "PEGASUS" reports often
    involved chains of multiple zero-days)."

    There is a *lot* of raw data and analysis in those links, right?
    That's what this thread is asking other people for help in finding.

    I simply want more raw data, and/or better analysis of that raw data.

    We'd have to compile their findings to get a sense of numbers over time,
    but the quality of their data is top-tier. For example, their recent (June
    12, 2025) "Graphite Caught" report confirms another zero-click iOS 0-day.

    If any of us had better data, then that's what we'd be discussing.

    Your problem is that you're over interpreting the data, calling it "facts" and then getting emotional when someone disagrees.

    Now that's a *different* thing altogether.
    As long as you don't flatly brazenly deny facts can exist, I'm OK with it.

    If I dumb down the analysis to the lowest level, it agrees completely with Paul's commentary that there is MORE DATA than just the raw data.

    Sure. Raw data isn't an analysis.
    Raw data is raw data.

    For example, these reports are simply raw data.
    <https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog>
    <https://cloud.google.com/blog/topics/threat-intelligence/2024-zero-day-trends>

    Two people could read that raw data, and come up with completely different assessments of the threat level - just as two people could look at what's happening in the Middle East this week and come up with two assessments.

    But the raw data is what is incontrovertible, Chris.

    Remember, Apple locked you into the barbed-wired walled prison garden "for
    your safety" so you sure as hell should be seeing fewer 0-day bugs, right?

    And yet - you don't.

    In fact, you have more 0-days than Android over time.
    And about the same as Android recently.

    With all that barbed wire in the walled prison garden, why didn't it
    provide you any security?

    Note: I'm well aware 0 days are only one aspect of security.
    And I'm well aware that a 0 day that affects everyone is different than a
    0-day that only affects three people is different in terms of threat.

    That's why I asked, in this thread, for BETTER DATA.
    Nobody has it.
    Yet.

    Then you agree that the CISA report shows that cumulatively iOS has about
    1-1/2 times

    You keep repeating this phrase, but it is very unclear. Do you mean, "1x to 0.5x" which means at most the same and as little as half? Which is counter
    to your narrative. It would also be usually written "0.5 - 1.0 times". You likely meant something, but wrote it poorly.

    Chris - your questions are reasonable so let's look at this from the
    simplest perspective, since the main point is Apple locked you into a barbed-wire prison garden "for your safety" so you'd better be safer.

    Right?

    The cumulative 0-day count changes every day, so let's use simple round
    numbers to explain what I mean by the rough estimate of 1.5 times more.

    Over time, let's say there were 100 Android 0-days exploited in the wild.
    Then, over that same time, there are 150 iOS 0-days exploited in the wild.

    SO the iOS cumulative zero-day count is *always* much greater than Android.
    By about 1.5 times (or 150 percent).

    This number is consistent because there are a large number of zero days for both platforms and the count only goes up by a half dozen to a dozen a
    year.

    So iOS will *always* (in the foreseeable future) have more cumulative
    0-days since they'd have to drastically cut down to improve that count.

    the total number of known zero-day exploits than Android has.

    That may be what is reported in CISA, but as has been clearly described it
    is flawed. Any comparative analysis has little validity and can't be extrapolated to make grandiose claims.

    Chris - you claim to have a PhD in the biological sciences, right?
    You don't have to tell me that raw data isn't an assessment.

    The fact is incontrovertible that iOS has had, over time, 1-1/2 times more
    zero days exploited in the wild than Android has had.

    Now... let's just look at the huge magnitude of that problem, shall we?

    If Apple locked you into the barbed-wire walled prison garden "for your safety", why does iOS have hugely more 0-day exploits than Android does?

    Where is that "safety" you paid so dearly for?

    If Apple locked you into that walled prison garden "for your safety", why
    do you have 1-1/2 times the number of known zero day exploits in iOS?

    Where is that safety you paid so dearly for in lost functionality?

    When did I pay dearly for safety?

    The fact the iOS device can't do anything every other common consumer
    operating system does, such as provide privacy via Tor for one, is where
    you're paying dearly.

    While Apple's (rather brilliant) marketing sells you on "privacy", it turns
    out there is no mobile device *less private* than iOS is, Chris.

    And that's only one way you're paying dearly for Apple's claims of safety. There are a lot more (e.g., an iOS device is so dumb it's shocking).

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From R.Wieser@21:1/5 to All on Tue Jun 17 16:54:08 2025
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    Marion,

    These are facts, Chris, not assertions:
    <https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog>

    <https://cloud.google.com/blog/topics/threat-intelligence/2024-zero-day-trends>

    No. Those are URLs.

    C'mon Chris. That's what Apple trolls do.
    They constantly claim facts are just a jumble of alphanumeric
    characters.

    Nope, hes right. And all you do is to send others on a wild-goose chase to find what you are *suggesting* thats should be in there. If we can't find
    it ? Yeah, that is *ofcourse* because we are to dumb.

    Face it kid, you do not even have the guts the quote the parts outof it that you think support your stance.

    Regards,
    Rudy Wieser

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Marion@21:1/5 to Marion on Tue Jun 17 15:18:17 2025
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 15:16:03 -0000 (UTC), Marion wrote :


    What you need to understand is the perspective I am conveying.
    a. It's NOT god like
    b. In fact, it's an el cheapo phone
    c. But... it's far better than any iPhone that was ever made

    Also, support never ends for Android phones (Android 10 and above).
    All Android phones (10 & above) are updated monthly, Chris.
    Forever.

    What you Apple owners don't understand is that there are levels of support. Where, overall, Apple's iOS support is *the worst in the industry*.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Marion@21:1/5 to Chris on Tue Jun 17 15:16:03 2025
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 18:34:37 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote :


    Like your god-like A32 5G whose support ended four
    months ago:
    https://endoflife.date/samsung-mobile

    First off, I got a half dozen A32-5G phones not because they are "god like"
    but because they were completely free (sans the sales tax on the MSRP).

    The MSRP is about $180 so for you to think I claim they're 'god like' is a gross misrepresentation of what I say about them, Chris.

    In fact, I often call my phone an "el cheapo" phone, especially when
    comparing it to the most expensive iPhones ever made or to a Google Pixel.

    What I often say is this el cheapo $180 MSRP phone has more functionality
    than any iPhone ever sold.

    My el cheapo phone has a better battery than any iPhone ever made.
    It has better basic hardware functionality than any recent iPhone of today. And, that el cheapo phone has more software functionality than any iPhone.

    What you need to understand is the perspective I am conveying.
    a. It's NOT god like
    b. In fact, it's an el cheapo phone
    c. But... it's far better than any iPhone that was ever made

    It's likely even far better than any iPhone that will ever be made.
    Time will tell.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to Marion on Tue Jun 17 09:11:04 2025
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On 2025-06-17 08:18, Marion wrote:
    On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 15:16:03 -0000 (UTC), Marion wrote :


    What you need to understand is the perspective I am conveying.
    a. It's NOT god like
    b. In fact, it's an el cheapo phone
    c. But... it's far better than any iPhone that was ever made

    Also, support never ends for Android phones (Android 10 and above).
    All Android phones (10 & above) are updated monthly, Chris.
    Forever.

    Ummmmmm...no.

    It has been PROMISED that support will never end, maybe.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From AJL@21:1/5 to Marion on Tue Jun 17 17:31:53 2025
    On 6/17/25 8:18 AM, Marion wrote:
    On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 15:16:03 -0000 (UTC), Marion wrote :


    What you need to understand is the perspective I am conveying.
    a. It's NOT god like
    b. In fact, it's an el cheapo phone
    c. But... it's far better than any iPhone that was ever made

    Also, support never ends for Android phones (Android 10 and above).
    All Android phones (10 & above) are updated monthly, Chris.
    Forever.

    I wish that were true for me. This Galaxy S10+ phone (currently Android 12)
    hasn't been updated in over a year (6-1-24). When I just checked it gave me
    a green circled check mark and said I was up to date...

    What you Apple owners don't understand is that there are levels of support. >Where, overall, Apple's iOS support is *the worst in the industry*.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Marion@21:1/5 to Chris on Mon Jun 23 20:37:24 2025
    XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone

    On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 12:47:54 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote :


    Except you said iphones had already failed the tests in 2022 and android
    phones like yours passed with flying colours. So prove it. You don't need
    to wait as this is historical "fact".

    It's 22nd June and instead of Arlen's critical analysis and logic skills (sic) all we've got is tumbleweed.

    I guess his unsubstantiated claims, as per usual, were simply hot air.

    <https://regulatoryinfo.apple.com/cwt/api/ext/file?fileId=whitePaperEnergyLabels/EU_Energy_Label_for_iPhone_and_iPad_EN_1749628569689.pdf>

    1. iPhone Battery = B rated (not A)
    2. iPhone Reliability = C rated (not A nor even B)
    3. iPhone Repairability = C rated (not A nor even B)

    Details in this placeholder thread which predicted the EU's new rules will
    show how crappy iPhone batteries truly are (they're cheap garbage in fact).

    *Placeholder for June 20, 2025 - Apple trolls - crying that the mean ole' EU banned their iPhone for sale*
    <https://www.novabbs.com/computers/article-flat.php?id=59182&group=comp.mobile.android#59182>

    Every article shows no iPhone below the iPhone 15 even comes close to the lifetime charge cycle minimum point - which proves they've sucked for
    years.

    The iPhone 15 *barely* ekes out past the bare minimum on battery life, but compare that to most (even cheap) Android phones which easily *double* the lifetime battery ratings, and you see the proof that Apple puts the
    crappiest cheapest lowest-capacity battery it can get away with in the
    iPhone.

    Do you know why the iPhone battery is cheap crappy garbage?
    I do.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)