Eskenzi PR ad banner Eskenzi PR ad banner
  • About Us
Thursday, 4 June, 2026
IT Security Guru
Eskenzi PR banner
  • Home
  • Features
  • Insight
  • Channel News
  • Events
    • Most Inspiring Women in Cyber 2026
  • Topics
    • Cloud Security
    • Cyber Crime
    • Cyber Warfare
    • Data Protection
    • DDoS
    • Hacking
    • Malware, Phishing and Ransomware
    • Mobile Security
    • Network Security
    • Regulation
    • Skills Gap
    • The Internet of Things
    • Threat Detection
    • AI and Machine Learning
    • Industrial Internet of Things
  • Multimedia
  • Product Reviews
  • About Us
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Features
  • Insight
  • Channel News
  • Events
    • Most Inspiring Women in Cyber 2026
  • Topics
    • Cloud Security
    • Cyber Crime
    • Cyber Warfare
    • Data Protection
    • DDoS
    • Hacking
    • Malware, Phishing and Ransomware
    • Mobile Security
    • Network Security
    • Regulation
    • Skills Gap
    • The Internet of Things
    • Threat Detection
    • AI and Machine Learning
    • Industrial Internet of Things
  • Multimedia
  • Product Reviews
  • About Us
No Result
View All Result
IT Security Guru
No Result
View All Result

OpenSSL Heartbleed patch progress slowing two months later

by The Gurus
June 24, 2014
in Top 10 Stories
Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Threatpost: It’s been more than two months since news broke of the Heartbleed vulnerability in OpenSSL one of the Internet’s most widely deployed cryptographic libraries. In the days and weeks that followed the emergence of the bug, which affected an unknown but arguably vast swath of the Web, vendors were quick to provide patches. However, new research suggests the zeal to fix the widely publicized bug may be waning.
Robert Graham, a security researcher and the owner of Errata Security, has been tracking the patch progress for Heartbleed since shortly after it emerged. Just days after Heartbleed became known, Graham performed a scan of port 443 traffic andfound that 615,268 machines were vulnerable. A month after that, Graham performed a second scan of port 443 and found 318,239 machines vulnerable. On Saturday, he performed a third scan, finding that 309,197 machines remain vulnerable.

ShareTweet
Previous Post

Seizing data for 2.5 years amounts to “general warrant,” court says

Next Post

British Gas Twitter Account Hijacked

Recent News

Nagomi Control Brings CTEM Into Action

IT Security Guru picks for Infosecurity Europe 2026

June 1, 2026
Nine in Ten Security Leaders Concerned About AI-Generated Code Risks as Salt Security Launches New Governance Tool

Nine in Ten Security Leaders Concerned About AI-Generated Code Risks as Salt Security Launches New Governance Tool

June 1, 2026
Acumen Cyber and AttackIQ Partner to Strengthen Cyber Defense Validation

Acumen Cyber and AttackIQ Partner to Strengthen Cyber Defense Validation

May 29, 2026
Check Point Launches AI Agents That Think Like Attackers as Autonomous Exploitation Reaches Critical Threat Level

Check Point Launches AI Agents That Think Like Attackers as Autonomous Exploitation Reaches Critical Threat Level

May 28, 2026

The IT Security Guru offers a daily news digest of all the best breaking IT security news stories first thing in the morning! Rather than you having to trawl through all the news feeds to find out what’s cooking, you can quickly get everything you need from this site!

Our Address: 10 London Mews, London, W2 1HY

Follow Us

© 2015 - 2024 IT Security Guru - Website Managed by Dessol

  • About Us
Manage Consent
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes. The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
  • Manage options
  • Manage services
  • Manage {vendor_count} vendors
  • Read more about these purposes
View preferences
  • {title}
  • {title}
  • {title}
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Features
  • Insight
  • Channel News
  • Events
    • Most Inspiring Women in Cyber 2026
  • Topics
    • Cloud Security
    • Cyber Crime
    • Cyber Warfare
    • Data Protection
    • DDoS
    • Hacking
    • Malware, Phishing and Ransomware
    • Mobile Security
    • Network Security
    • Regulation
    • Skills Gap
    • The Internet of Things
    • Threat Detection
    • AI and Machine Learning
    • Industrial Internet of Things
  • Multimedia
  • Product Reviews
  • About Us

© 2015 - 2024 IT Security Guru - Website Managed by Dessol