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.
Look, the obvious point about this should be that the reason Linux has more known vulnerabilities is that linux has always been very open about what is wrong with linux.
As for MS, I only have to point to the the major bug, that they knew about for weeks, but didn't let anybody know about!
Now Im not saying that linux is more secure (as much as i would like to) but the data and report based from it, just makes no sense, if you think about how vulnerabilties are and are not reported
Thanks for reading!
Sigs are dangerous coy things
You apparently didn't check out NTBugTraq. They simply added up vulnerabilities from different linux distros to come up with a high aggregate number. This is plain wrong because
1) If a package has a security issue, usually all distros announce the security bug. Thus, the bug gets counted multiple times.
2) Windows security bugs are all remote compromises, either email attachments, or remote roots. Over 90% of the linux security problems are local security issues.
As another poster noted, this is a very poorly researched article.
In the long term Linux will have progressively fewer bugs/vulnerabilities due to its open source nature. Look at the numbers on the same chart for NetBSD. There were 9 vulnerabilities found in 2001, and 42 found in Win 2K. 54 for RedHat and only 2 for TurboLinux.
Obviously everyone should switch to Turbo Linux.
Lasers Controlled Games!
If Linux had the marketshare of Windows, you can bet there would be lots and lots of scriptkiddies writing Code-Red style worms. Linux has had some pretty major security flaws in the past. Although they were fixed quickly, that doesn't mean that lazy or incompetent sysadmins will patch it right up. This leads to an opportunity for a Code-Red style worm, and if Linux had high marketshare, you can bet that it would have spread rather quickly as well.
That's it. I'm no longer part of Team Sanity.
The security of any OS lies in the skill of its admin. An idiot with a 2k box is no more secure than an idiot with a linux box and vice versa.
- Toby
Again, Winformant, in a desperate attempt to seem like they aren't a bunch of toadies, has struck an "independent" blow against linux's "security myth," by proving that more holes were found in linux than in Windows.
Well, duh. Linux is full of holes. But that's not winformant's problem. You see, each of those holes was cleared up in a matter of days and a patch was freely available. There were no egos and press releases claiming there are no holes. There were no programmers waiting around while Marketing decided the best colour for the patch's installation wizard. There was no downtime as millions of machines had to get the file from a single MS server because the patch's license didn't allow redistribution. There were no hours of wringing hands as sysadmins watched hackers pick off their boxes one by one because there's no workaround while the patch was built. There was no possibility for diving into the code and fixing it yourself; and if there was there'd be no way to release the patched dll. Oh, and if a linux machine was compromised, there was little chance of it polluting the entire network...because the bug affected less than 1% of the install base of that particular OS, and not 100%.
Not to mention the reason that so many Linux patches were "found" rather than "discovered" is that bored sysadmins can sit around with sheets of source code, hoping to find a hole and make a name for themselves on BugTraq. With windows...well, you'd better be good with BlackIC and ASM, because it's the only way you're finding the hole.
Hey freaks: now you're ju
I can't connect to WinInformant, but if you look at the numbers available at SecurityFocus, you'll see that they did not simply add up the numbers. Linux is listet with 96 aggregated vulnerabilities for 2001, while e.g. Red Hat has 54, Debian got 28, and Mandrake got 36. There are more Linux distributions listed, but these numbers allone show that your claim is wrong (unless WinInformant has different numbers).
You'll also see that Red Hat had 54 vulnerabilities while Windows 2000 had only 42.
However, I'd still agree that the WinInformant article is badly researched (but please note that, as stated above, I've not read it, I only know the part that Slashdot quoted). The article claims that Windows is more secure "according to the reputable NTBugTraq," however, SecurityFocus does not make any claim concerning the security of either Windows or Linux, they just make the numbers available as a statistic. In other words, WinInformant doesn't have any source for their claims, they just found some more or less interesting numbers and made up a story.
Sig (appended to the end of comments I post, 54 chars)
l10n and ramen were two recent worms that attacked a bug in some versions of BIND on almost all unices. This would appear to be evidence against your theory that "no-one writes worms for *nix because of lack of market share".
Find another excuse.
--
E_NOSIG
Of course, that's not the case in the server market. If you want to talk about worms, remember one thing - the ONLY reason Code Red and other such worms exist is because of the popularity if the windows platform, on desktops and servers. Don't kid yourself for a second into thinking that the reason there aren't any widespread worms for *nix systems is because it's more secure.
Dont kid yourself. The various free o/s's are simply a harder target. They are more diverse, both across O/S's and distributions, and even within a distribution there are different configurations. On top of all that any individual box can be a totally custom system built from the source pool.
There are countless email readers, multiple web browsers, all types of competing server daemons. When you take the windows monoculture you simply dont find such diversity. The competing software are simply wiped out.
Its a well known and intuitive fact that monocultures are far more vulnerable to disease and parasites than a healthy diverse population.
Windows security holes typically have exploits in the field, whereas linux vulnerabilities are commonly realeased from code review- hence having no preexisting exploits (that are known and demonstrated). Some are in fact purely theoretical, and may have to use to a malicious user.
So even if you keep on top of your windows updates religiously, keep in mind that they are generally reactive. So there is always that window of vulnerability...
Oh please. This is the same Slashdot that touted 30K bugs for Windows 2000 (like every other major tech publisher) regardless of the fact that the bugs were not known and many were probably "We spelled "maximize" wrong here".
It gets worse than that. Let's consider:
Most bugs that show up for redhat or any other linux distribution will NOT affect a well-secured machine in the first place. If you plan, for example, a standard web or database server, you're only going to permit ssh and apache or ssh and your brand of sql. How many vulnerabilities in the past year have been on those services? Practically none. Only 1 in ssh, and there was AMPLE warning to get patched before exploits were in the wild. The majority of bugs are for packages not often deployed, or not relevent to a server system where there is no user access.
Meanwhile, an enormous number of these linux bugs are irrelevent on a firewalled system, never mind the incompetency of sysadmins. A firewall will protect your X font server or your installed-by-default nfsd/statd, but Microsoft has had many high-profile, extremely-widely-abused holes in a server's primary services (IIS, MS-SQL, etc).
Anyhow, trying to say these statistics show that NT is more secure than Linux is not only irresponsible but absurd.
Another note from bugtraq that will really push the numbers in favor of Windows. I quote: "* There is a distinct difference in the way that vulnerabilities are counted for Microsoft Windows and other operating systems. For instance, applications for Linux and BSD are often grouped in as subcomponents with the operating systems that they are shipped with. For Windows, applications and subcomponents such as Explorer often have their own packages that are considered vulnerable or not vulnerable outside of Windows and therefore may not be included in the count. This may skew numbers." MAY?!?!? More likely WILL.
So let's see. IE vulnerabilities aren't counted. There goes the fairness in the numbers right there. Was IIS counted?
I posted a couple years ago on this topic. My hypothesis at the time was that Open Source would show more bugs for quite some time, as people poked through the code, but would gradually settle down and become very secure. I also believed that Windows vulnerabilities would continue to be discovered at a more or less constant rate.
The jury is still out.
The SecurityFocus statistics broke in August, 2001, per their web page, so one has to extrapolate the partial 2001 total to get the projected total for the year.
In that extrapolation, one sees that the expected number of bugs (assuming the 96 reported bugs cover through the end of August) would be 144. There were 153 the year prior, which is likely well within the margin of error. In addition, many of the black hats have STOPPED REVEALING their exploits, so in fact there may be many more than what we see.
Now, it's worth pointing out that this is not necessarily a good measurement of security. We may be measuring the wrong thing.
An example of bad measurement is the one the government used to determine how many cod were left out in the ocean, to prevent overfishing. Year after year, the catches were about the same, so the government assumed that the fish stocks were constant. But suddenly there were no more fish -- the industry collapsed.
Why? Because they were measuring the wrong thing. They weren't measuring the total number of fish, they were measuring the fish that were caught. They didn't realize, as the fish stocks dwindled rapidly, that the fishers were getting newer and better technology to fish with. The total number of fish coming out of the water was constant -- but as a fraction of the total fish in the water, was going up very quickly. Eventually the fish were all but wiped out.
Measuring security by bugs reported is very similar. It may or may not reflect the number of bugs in the 'ocean'. It is an indirect measurement at best.
We need to differentiate between fish 'caught' and fish 'available'. From a security perspective, I think we are talking about TRUE security (the number of fish in the water) versus FUNCTIONAL security (the number of fish actually being caught).
Now, as security people, our goal is to reduce the fish catch as much as possible. There's two ways to do this; we can reduce the number of fish, or we can somehow control, limit, or damage the profession of fishing.
The real professonals are trying to reduce the number of fish in the water. That's the true long-term solution. But from a short-term perspective, what I care about personally is how many fish are CAUGHT. Every time they come up with a new exploit, I have to run around like a maniac patching systems.
However, the fishing analogy starts to break down, as most do eventually. Truly secure systems are still run by people, and people make mistakes. Even if the OS is perfect, the attack will often come against the weakest link, the employees. Thus, even though I would prefer to have true security, I have to argue that it isn't really necessary. The OS just has to be stronger than the other avenues of attack. ("Why are you putting on tennis shoes? You can't outrun a bear!" "I don't have to. I just have to outrun you.")
Security through obscurity, in other words, may be adequate for most uses. It slows down the rate of fish catching. If nobody discovers the bug until the next version of the OS is out, the bug is less important. The longer it takes to discover the bug, in general, the less damage it will do -- at least as long as we're on the upgrade treadmill.
But, a counter-argument to that just occurred to me: Security through obscurity may be long-term counter-productive -- making it hard to catch fish may have the effect of increasing the fish supply. Every time a fish is caught, it can't breed, and reduces the total population by that much. Likewise, in code, once a vulnerability is discovered, many related vulnerabilities may also be patched. Thus, security through obscurity may work well for a long time, but may actually be making the fundamental problem worse.
Another observation I have to add is that programmers like to create new programs. Very few of them like to audit code. New projects and programs are being added to the Open Source world at an amazing speed, and I don't think they're being stringently audited. In other words, they're adding to the fish stocks every day. There is no QA department in Open Source, and the code is getting more complex than individual people can understand anymore. I think, unless we come up with a better development method, Microsoft's ability to fund a billion dollar a year QA department is likely to reduce their fish count below that of Open Source.
So I think I will need to expand on my original hypothesis. I now believe that Open Source will probably lag behind closed source in terms of FUNCTIONAL security. In terms of TRUE security (absolute number of exploitable bugs, known or unknown) -- there's no easy way to tell. If catching fish reduces the fish supply, and if the programmers don't add too many new fish, eventually Open Source will start winning. But if Microsoft's QA department does a good job with their nets and lures, their fish supply may drop just as fast or faster. Money is definitely a good way to motivate people, and Microsoft has a lot of it.
It's also worth pointing out that even if things are getting more secure, the catch rates may be roughly constant, because presumably the crackers will get better and better, catching a higher and higher percentage of the fish. If the analogy holds, and I suspect it may, then eventually the fish stocks will be exhausted and the black hats will be very suddenly unable to crack machines anymore.
It's going to take at least five more years to know -- and twenty might be a more reaonable time frame. It took a long time to wipe out all those billions of cod. It may take just as long to wipe out the pool of security flaws.
<<RON>>