X
Tech

News.com: IBM patches Lotus flaw

CNET and others have reported on new securitypatches that were already included in Notes 6.5.5 and now this week areavailable in Notes 7.0.1.IBM has issued a patch for ahalf dozen "highly critical" security flaws in versions of itsLotus Notes, which could allow a malicious attacker to execute arbitrarycode remotely when users access files through the Notes attachment viewer.I acknowledge a left-hand right-hand problem here.  Imade a particularly boastful claim about the Notes client not having hadto be security patched over the years during one of my Lotusphere sessions,while we had in fact put such a patch in the most recent version of thecode.  My mistake.  However, I'd still take Notes/Domino's historyin the security space over 20 other enterprise software products -- theythought it out right at the start, and even in this case, the file viewersare somewhat orthogonal to the "core" code.Link: News.com:IBM patches Lotus flaw >Link: Lotus.com/security(updated technotes) >
Written by Ed Brill, Contributor
CNET and others have reported on new security patches that were already included in Notes 6.5.5 and now this week are available in Notes 7.0.1.
IBM has issued a patch for a half dozen "highly critical" security flaws in versions of its Lotus Notes, which could allow a malicious attacker to execute arbitrary code remotely when users access files through the Notes attachment viewer.
I acknowledge a left-hand right-hand problem here.  I made a particularly boastful claim about the Notes client not having had to be security patched over the years during one of my Lotusphere sessions, while we had in fact put such a patch in the most recent version of the code.  My mistake.  However, I'd still take Notes/Domino's history in the security space over 20 other enterprise software products -- they thought it out right at the start, and even in this case, the file viewers are somewhat orthogonal to the "core" code.

Link: News.com: IBM patches Lotus flaw >
Link: Lotus.com/security (updated technotes) >

Originally by Ed Brill from Ed Brill on February 11, 2006, 10:28am

Editorial standards