Via Terry Chay's blog:

In response to some of the claims made by CNet about the security of PHP, Ken Guest has made a few comments on his blog hoping to correct a few wrongs.

What are featuring in IBM's top ten of vulnerable that makes the report insinuate that the PHP language is a security risk are Jooma, Wordpress and Drupal. How PHP would feature in a list of "vendors" is beside the point.

He illustrates with an allegory that it's not the tool's fault if it's used improperly. Pointing out software like WordPress and Drupal is not the same as pointing out issues with the language that powers them (no matter how trendy it is). The burden is on the developers to use the power the language offers to create more secure, flexible, stable applications. Does PHP have its share of problems? Sure, but get it right next time CNet - don't blame the tool if the builder's not up to spec.

In his latest blog post, Marcus Whitney urges everyone (both in and outside the community) to "stop bashing Zend, it's old".

Unless you are in the business of competing with Zend, what do you care if an article looks a little bit like corporate PR speak on Zend's behalf. They've done a lot for the language, and while some of the PR in years past was clearly out of line (the timeline of PHP and "Creators" schtick comes to mind), that policy has been changed and they are working on improving community relations.

He cites another blog entry (a response to this) from Edin as something that could cause a problem in the community, pushing a more anti-Zend slant on the whole PHP6 situation.

In his latest blog post, Andi Gutmans responds to a CNet article and some of the misconceptions surrounding it.

As I mentioned in my response to Edin's blog entry, in the interview I never called out PHP 6 as a Zend product. I *did* talk about what's coming down the pipeline for PHP and mentioned that both Zend and Yahoo! have been contributing to the Unicode effort (which is true).

It's also important to understand that it is *not* in Zend's interest to claim that we are the only company behind PHP, that would make PHP look much smaller than it is which would be very counter productive to our quest for increasing PHP proliferation.

He notes that the only connotation he was implying was that Zend waqs doing its part to help PHP, as a language, to grow and thrive - not that it was the biggest/best/most important at doing so. There are some sensitive topics that the CNet article inadvertently touches on that have caused some problems already, but Andi hopes that his statements here and in the comments on Edin's blog help resolve at least some of the issues out there.