Security FUD On Linux

bobmatnyc writes "InfoWorld reports that Microsoft is planning an "security assault on Linux" by hyping results of a commissioned study pointing to the number of security holes in Linux vs. Windows, the number of days it takes to fill the patches, and by raising questions as to the reliability of code submitted throught the OS process. I suppose if they focus very narrowly on one measurement of security, completely ignore script-level vulnerabilities, default settings vulnerabilities (such as root access for all users), and the demographics of the user population, as well as a zillion other things I'm not clever enough to think of off the top of my head, they may have a point. "

Comments

Root access for all users??

[LadyLucky]

Who writes this tripe? This hasn't been true in Windows for years! It seems if your only experience of Windows is Windows 95, then of course it's all going to seem silly, but really, get with the program.

Why is it FUD?

[sheldon]

This is a hole the Linux community dug for itself, and now Microsoft is going to defend their record against the Linux record. If the Linux record doesn't fair well based on the facts, then maybe you shouldn't be making the ridiculous claims?

Or did you think that by repeating the mantra, "Well of course Linux is more secure" you weren't going to ever have to face up to reality?

Listen, when you realize you're in a hole, stop digging!

Re:Why is it FUD?

[sheldon]

Hmm. You seem to be ignoring the fact that I used to develop on Linux years ago.

There is nothing at all compelling about the platform, so I see no reason to switch back.

BTW, I suspect your personal web page runs on Linux, which means your biased. The fact that you're wasting your skills on Perl indicates to me that you're willing to promote any FUD you can to continue your job security.

How's that strike ya?

Re:Agreed

[kfg]

Don't be silly. 1.3 Billion of that R&D money was spent on DRM projects.

How can you possibly say they aren't serious about security?

KFG