# Quality of Ruby

**URL:** <https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/quality-of-ruby/155628>\
**Category:** Ruby\
**Created:** [December 14, 2008, 11:46pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/quality-of-ruby/155628 "2008-12-14T23:46:02Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 4\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Kless](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/k/cc9497/32.png) [@Kless](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Kless)\
**Post date:** [December 14, 2008, 11:46pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/quality-of-ruby/155628/1 "2008-12-14T23:46:02Z")

</div>

I was reading this interesting post [1] about Ruby, and well…, you  
rather read it.

[1] [http://www.zedshaw.com/rants/the\_big\_ruby\_vulnerabilities.html](http://www.zedshaw.com/rants/the_big_ruby_vulnerabilities.html)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Kless](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/k/cc9497/32.png) [@Kless](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Kless)\
**Post date:** [December 17, 2008, 9:20pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/quality-of-ruby/155628/2 "2008-12-17T21:20:32Z")

</div>

Kless [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) writes:

> I was reading this interesting post [1] about Ruby, and well…, you  
> rather read it.
> 
> [1] [http://www.zedshaw.com/rants/the\_big\_ruby\_vulnerabilities.html](http://www.zedshaw.com/rants/the_big_ruby_vulnerabilities.html)

1. consider the source
2. upgrade your Ruby

Having said that. Is there a particular concern you stil have?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Kless](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/k/cc9497/32.png) [@Kless](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Kless)\
**Post date:** [December 18, 2008, 1:14am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/quality-of-ruby/155628/3 "2008-12-18T01:14:48Z")

</div>

On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 4:37 PM, Kless [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote:

> I was reading this interesting post [1] about Ruby, and well…, you  
> rather read it.
> 
> [1] [http://www.zedshaw.com/rants/the\_big\_ruby\_vulnerabilities.html](http://www.zedshaw.com/rants/the_big_ruby_vulnerabilities.html)

Well, I guess some people like to bitch, and some people like to fix  
;^)

Todd

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Kless](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/k/cc9497/32.png) [@Kless](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Kless)\
**Post date:** [December 18, 2008, 2:01am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/quality-of-ruby/155628/4 "2008-12-18T02:01:35Z")

</div>

On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 9:12 PM, Brian A. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid)  
wrote:

> Kless [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) writes:
> 
> > I was reading this interesting post [1] about Ruby, and well…, you  
> > rather read it.
> > 
> > [1] [http://www.zedshaw.com/rants/the\_big\_ruby\_vulnerabilities.html](http://www.zedshaw.com/rants/the_big_ruby_vulnerabilities.html)
> 
> 1. consider the source  
> He’s asking if he is funny, well at that exact moment he is. But never  
> beat a man on the ground ☹
> 2. upgrade your Ruby  
> for sure.  
> R.