Slashdot Mirror
WinInformant Says Windows More Secure Than Linux
nihilist_1137 excerpts from this WinInformant article, which reads in part: "For at least the first 8 months of 2001, open-source poster child Linux was far less secure than Windows, according to the reputable NTBugTraq, which is hosted by SecurityFocus, the leading provider of security information about the Internet. ... A look at the previous 5 years--for which the data is more complete--also shows that each year, Win2K and Windows NT had far fewer security vulnerabilities than Linux, despite the fact that Windows is deployed on a far wider basis than any version of Linux." I wonder how many sysadmins (Windows or Linux) would agree with this conclusion. Update: 02/04 16:54 GMT by T : Looks like the WinInfo site has gone down since the story was submitted, so you may have to content yourself in the meantime with the Bugtraq numbers. Update: 02/04 19:30 GMT by T :Several readers have pointed out that the conclusions WinInformant makes based on the Bugtraq data are not those of SecurityFocus; the headline has been changed accordingly.
Scientists have discovered that internal combustion is cleaner and more efficient than anit-matter.
But it is possible to have a very secure Windows environent. No, it does not involve turning the box off ;^)
.SCR, etc) were banned long before I Love You came along.
Take this example: you have a highly competent NT/2K administrator (they do exist) and a pitiful *nix administrator. Which one is going to produce a more secure box? Any objective person would have to say the NT/2K guy would, because he knows his platform well enough to shore up vulnerabilities. Nimda, I Love You, and many other worms did not hit affect my company because we took security very seriously beforehand. Malicious attachments (.EXE,
Now, having played devil's advocate for a moment, let me say that if you have a tightly controlled *nix box with a competent admin and a focus on security, you can create a damn near impregnable system. The weaknesses then lie with the applications, not the OS, and that's something ALL vendors need to work on (you listening, Larry "Unbreakable" Ellison?)
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
>>>Even with Microsoft's creative definition of what makes up an "operating system".
LOL. I can just hear MS PR:
"All Microsoft software products are inextricably tied to the operating system...except when they are mentioned in a security announcement."
I guess the NT in NTBugtraq stands for "Not True".
Connectiva has been declared the safest operating system ever with combined vulnerabilities over the last 5 years equalling 0. Everyone in corporate america and those banks too should immediately through out all other operating systems and switch over to Connectiva.
Warning: Connectiva does not support vulnerabilities and all calls will be redirected to the nearest OS distributor.
Hey, look everybody, it's Funny's cousin, Not Funny!
have been filed under 'Humor'?
That's it, I'm abandoning all this and going back to CP/M!
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
And the game is 2 to 1
OS:Linux
--------------
Virus:Sendmail, Wu-ftpd
OS:Windows
--------------
Virus:Windows
They neglect the 600 OE viruses each year...
forget it.
Number of Windows 98 Vulnerabilities: One
Vulnerability 1 -- The Product has no security features.
As of this morning, however, the dog seems to be dead (www.wininformant.com.) Coincidence? You tell me.
It's Linux, damnit! Pay no attention to renaming attempts by self-aggrandizing blowhards.
"you cant Beat the stable debian kernel 2.2",p>One could also argue that you couldn't beat the original DOS in internet security because it couldn't (easily) connect to the internet. Anyone who argues that an older version is the way to go is fooling themselves.