Talk:Drupal/Archives/2012/September

Security section
While quoting a source the author clearly misses the reductio ad absurdum of that source's methods: That the number of security issues reported is proportional to how insecure it is.

If the number of security holes reported in an open source product shows how insecure it is then a product which reports no security problems must be the most secure.

This quantitative analysis proves nothing one way or the other and thus should be removed. (This may well apply to other open source software articles.)

84.19.51.98 (talk) 14:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC) adaddinsane

CVE
I have deleted the CVE data that was included. The referenced data included modules/plugins for Drupal and Wordpress, perhaps the other CMSes too. This gives a very misleading picture of the actual security vulnerabilities as the modules/plugins are developed by other developers and not part of the actual CMS itself. If we want the CVE information back we probably want to find better references that excludes these. 81.233.34.70 (talk) 11:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

chaydock (talk) 05:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)