Slashdot Mirror
Windows vs. Linux Security, Once More
TAGmclaren writes "The Register is running a very interesting article about Microsoft and Linux security. From the article: 'until now there has been no systematic and detailed effort to address Microsoft's major security bullet points in report form. In a new analysis published here, however, Nicholas Petreley sets out to correct this deficit, considering the claims one at a time in detail, and providing assessments backed by hard data. Petreley concludes that Microsoft's efforts to dispel Linux "myths" are based largely on faulty reasoning and overly narrow statistical analysis.' The full report is available here in HTML form, and here in PDF. Although the article does make mention of OS X, it would have been nice if the 'other' OS had been included in the detailed analysis for comparison."
What, no macro virus-infected Word file?
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Nicholas Petreley is a Linux advocate... there is a basic problem with a partisan person presenting a "fair and balanced" argument. Kinda like doing research with fixed goals.
The latter two links appear to be broken, but match the links provided in TFA. Perhaps the Register forgot to upload the actual reports?
"You're older than you've ever been, and now you're even older."
I'd rather see OSX security compared to Windows. I only have one user adventurous enough to use Linux on their desktop. The rest are about 70/30 Win/Mac.
What I would like to see is some security comparison of Microsoft software and FOSS, corrected for target size.
/. can come up with a good test, and some people can carry it out?
FOSS advocates often whine about MS insecurity, whereas MS advocates often claim MS only gets more break-ins because it's used more. The MS folks are probably not right in the Apache vs IIS case, but what about other cases? Is FOSS really more secure?
Unfortunately, I cannot think of any good way to measure this. Perhaps a little brainstorm on
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Amazing that it took a report to tell us what we already know
We already knew this. This report is for them.
Free XBox, PS2
Sorry, but as long as something like 90% of all the 'reports' about Linux being more secure and 'mythbusting' reports are writen by Linux supporters or have some business in seeing Linux succeed, I'm going to take this with a grain of salt. I'm not trying to say Windows is safe, but you can't expect me to believe this when a 'report' like this comes out every other week. If this guy was an ex-Windows programmer I'd be more understanding, but "former lives include editorial director of LinuxWorld"? Somehow I doubt they ran Windows on their machines.
And besides, last night while I was watching $stupid_cable_news_show I saw an ad for Microsoft. It said they were secure. Then I saw that same ad in $idiot_management_magazine. They can't advertise it if it's not true, so we should go with Windows Server 2003 for our new application.
And, besides, I just got Microsoft to sell Windows Server 2003 for $50 per copy by saying we'd switch to Linux. Here's the box, now go install it.
You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
I look forward to the Fedora SELinux project getting a good workable set of policies so that SELinux can default to being on for Fedora installs. Once that happens the "Linux is more Secure" claim will actually have some serious hard evidence behind it. SELinux and other Mandatory Access Control systems (anything hooking into the Linux Security Module in the kernel really) really are a serious step up in security, and there really is nothing comparable in the windows world.
A good way to think of MAC or SELinux is as a firewall between processes on your machine and the files and devices etc. on your machine. At the kernel level there is a set of rules, at pretty much as fine a grained level as you care to write, as to what can access what. It's well worth readign the FAQ to et a fuller idea of what we're talking about here.
Jedidiah.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
Ask some people that admin a mixed environment. Our Linux boxes get owned just the same as our Windows boxes do. When comparing older version of windows there is no doubt Linux owns windows but 2003 server it a pretty big improvement in security over NT 4.0 or 02. SP2 (with firewall) is also a huge improvement, just too bad it took MS this long to get it.
Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
meh..any system is only as secure as its users anyway..which i suspect is why linux has practically no problems.
Basically anyone who knows what a terminal window is isn't likely to run suspect attachments or not configure a firewall
I have discovered a truly remarkable sig which this post is too small to contain.
The author bashes Enterprise Server 2003 as being unstable, quoting MS's average uptime of around 59 days as evidence of this.
What people forget to mention is that MS security patches seem to like reboots, do the way filelocking works on Windows. Thus, whenever a "critical" flaw is released, they have to either patch it with a workaround (firewall rules, etc.) or they need to reboot the server.
When I was running an internal-only Enterprise 2003 server (behind several firewalls, no public IP) the only reboots I ever experienced were those related to environmental factors: the power went out for longer than the UPS could keep the server online for; etc.
After I started maintaining an externally-accessible 2003 server, I configured autopatching on it from Windows Update, and it reboots itself about once a month.
According to my calculations, this still meets the 99.9999% reliability that MS claims the server to be able to provide, on enterprise-grade hardware (and what I am running on is decidedly not enterprise-grade, unless eMachines has recently broken into the enterprise market and I forgot to read the press release.) Reboots take about 4 minutes to shut down, restart, wait for the services to resolve themselves, and try again. If I was so inclined, I could tweak this to be lower (1 whole minute is that the web server loads before the network module does, can't find an IP to bind to because IP isn't enabled yet, and fails to load, then waits to retry.)
It's a different design philosophy. My systems don't get "crufty" and crash, but they do have to be rebooted to apply security fixes. However, 4 minutes a month isn't a hardship, and anyone who says it is needs to either look into something transparently redundant, fault-tolerant, or reevaulate why they are so dependant on that one system in the first place.
Petreley concludes that Microsoft's efforts to dispel Linux "myths" are based largely on faulty reasoning and overly narrow statistical analysis.
Microsoft, official platform of the 2004 presidential campaign.
... turning to the 3-D map, we see an unmistakable con
I'm not taking that statement as true simply because someone said it. If I did that, I'd believe all of Microsoft's claims in the other direction, too. I believe it's true because it's a logical argument and can be backed up with evidence, whereas the claim that if Linux were more popular it would be just as vulnerable is pure conjecture.
Holes are holes, no doubt about that. Linux just has fewer of them because of good design principles.
"You're older than you've ever been, and now you're even older."
Though this was interesting, it would be nice to see something comparing OS X security to Windows security. When you think about it, they're both relatively proprietary OSes. Sure, Microsoft has there "Shared Source" stuff, and OS X is based on Open Darwin, but really the two would be a better match because of thier commercial status.
Sure, there are enterprise Linux distros from coimpanies like Red Hat, but you can still get a lot of use out of a non-commercial distro. There are so many ways that you can change Linux to make it more secure that comparing it to a rigid commercial OS is a bit inappropriate. I'm not saying that I think the article was pointless, just that we should give equal attentention to systems like OS X or even some of the other commercial UNIX distros for that matter.
Saying "I'll probably get modded down for this" in a post is the best way to get it modded up.
Nice fuzzy logic there. How many of those 40 Microsoft vulnerabilities were related to Internet Explorer? Yes, it's Microsoft's fault for integrating it in the OS, but if you are using Server 2003 O/S to cruise the web with an admin rights role, you are the security problem, not the OS.
Why don't we look instead at security vulnerabilities in a Server OS that are relative to functions a server should be performing. How many vulnerabilities has IIS 6.0 had versus Apache in the year and a half Server 2003 has been out?
Hmmm one of those has had zero, and it sure the hell ain't Apache.
http://www.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/02/09/05/ 020905hnmssecure.html
Will be exploited? Download the metasploit framework sometime; there are more exploits for Linux than for Solaris or Windows. But this is where the guy's point becomes important: because of how Windows deals with security tokens (here is a good place to start if you're curious), any exploit that gains access can probably execute code in the SYSTEM context.
So, of the Linux exploits that are trivially available to exploit, none can reliably execute arbitrary system code, while all of the Windows exploits can. That's not this one guy's opinion, that's just how the operating systems work.
All's true that is mistrusted
RSBAC should perhaps be considered. It is far more modular, been in production use a lot longer, has none of the disadvantages of selinux(eg works with any filesystem, needs no patches to filesystems, doesnt break other kernels on the same machone). It has a list of protections, has official PaX and virus(malware) scanner support, and the developer is always willing to take ideas from people and quickly fix issues. I would be interested for a detailed comparison of the two between slashdotters, thoughts and experiences etc.. But from everything I can see, RSBAC seems far superior. RSBAC.org
Tut, tut, Mr. Mytzlplk: /.land, it is bad form to accept the null hypothesis that moderators have RTFA, and clue #1 about irony.
In
The article is not misleading because the author is a linux advocate.
e .html
Now you are right if you want to remind readers to keep that in mind, but dismissing an article not on the base of its merits, but because the author is supposedly biased (mind, you didn't show or prove in any way that he was actually biased, you just wanted us to take it for granted) is a logical fallacy.
If you don't like the findings of the article, please tell us why, simply accusing the author of bias won't change the facts, sorry.
Argumentum ad Hominem
"Circumstantial: A Circumstantial Ad Hominem is one in which some irrelevant personal circumstance surrounding the opponent is offered as evidence against the opponent's position. This fallacy is often introduced by phrases such as: "Of course, that's what you'd expect him to say." The fallacy claims that the only reason why he argues as he does is because of personal circumstances, such as standing to gain from the argument's acceptance."
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomin
I used to wonder at the blinders-on group think of the hidden source folks. The elaborate unreality of their arguments was a puzzle, until I figured it out. Now I understand; it's all about the dream.
While some might dismiss the article because he is a Linux advocate, that's missing the point. His piece is geared toward Linux advocacy, but avoids the usual rhetoric. I kept looking for the usual Gates bashing, but didn't find any.
What I found instead were hard facts, distilled from public data. He didn't say, "I performed some tests which prove Linux is better." He took the publicly available information, analyzed it, and reported the results.
The response by the Microsoft marketing droids and vassal fudmeisters will be instructive to anyone who really thinks about it. Don't take away their dreams of a gold mine, at least not until they've got a Ferrari just like the guy in the next cube.
sigs, as if you care.
"Open Source Software is inherently dangerous"
Weasel words like "inherent" are convincing to dumbed-down folks. ./ ain't buying it though. God bless individualism.
"Statistics 'prove'..."
Ahhhh, the old "who can argue with scientific fact" line.
Provide us with "science" to back up this claim. Properly vetted, peer-reviewed science from an unbiased source, unfunded by those with a vested interest in the outcome please.
The psychological use of fear and "scientific" studies to convince the average American is not new. Read carefully the language of Microsoft and you'll hear JD Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, JP Morgan, etc. What you have to read carefully to find is their own fear that they are losing monopoly control. Big Oil was able to buy corrupt officials and maintain their decidedly un-capitalist ways. Will Microsoft?
I don't know what this guy is talking about. Windows uses spheres for permisions to run stuff. On the inside, you have all Microsoft Programs and on the outside you have all Non-Microsoft programs. See? They use spheres just like Linux.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
"Circumstantial: A Circumstantial Ad Hominem is one in which some irrelevant personal circumstance surrounding the opponent is offered as evidence against the opponent's position. This fallacy is often introduced by phrases such as: "Of course, that's what you'd expect him to say." The fallacy claims that the only reason why he argues as he does is because of personal circumstances, such as standing to gain from the argument's acceptance."e .html
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomin
According to my calculations, this still meets the 99.9999% reliability that MS claims the server to be able to provide, on enterprise-grade hardware (and what I am running on is decidedly not enterprise-grade, unless eMachines has recently broken into the enterprise market and I forgot to read the press release.)
.009% is very difficult and really doesn't give you much in terms of real world reliability for MOST business needs.
Nope.
Reboots take about 4 minutes to shut down, restart, wait for the services to resolve themselves, and try again.
4 minutes/month == 48 minutes/year.
99.999 availablility means 5.26 minutes of downtime per year.
At best, you've got around 99.99% availability.
However, 4 minutes a month isn't a hardship, and anyone who says it is needs to either look into something transparently redundant, fault-tolerant, or reevaulate why they are so dependant on that one system in the first place.
It isn't about "hardship". It's about reliability. Getting that last
But for those that require it, it is available. And because it is available to those, it is available to everyone. Even those who do not need it.
Sure, my print server probably doesn't need 99.999% reliability. But because it has it, I don't have to worry about it.
In my experience, it's the reboot that causes the hardware failures. The fewer reboots, the fewer chances for hardware failure.
Our Linux boxes get owned just the same as our Windows boxes do.
Then your Linux admins don't know what they're doing.
I read through the article, and was honestly shocked at some of the claims the author made when describing Windows in relation to Linux.
.htaccess, some odd batchfile script attacks with args to copy httpd.conf into htdocs, etc.)
Note that the purpose of this post is not to say "omg windows >>>> linux all you penguin lovers rot in hell" like a lot of this story will be. I am merely trying to clarify some of the author's points.
"Myth: Safety in Small Numbers"
"Furthermore, we should see more successful attacks against Apache than against IIS, since the implication of the myth is that the problem is one of numbers, not vulnerabilities.
Yet this is precisely the opposite of what we find, historically."
Running through 3GB of archived log files, from Apache running on 2003 Enterprise Server, I have concluded the following:
54% of attacks against IIS (Unicode traversal, buffer overflow, cgi, alternate data streams, etc.)
46% of attacks against Apache (htpasswd.exe, httpd.conf,
"Precisely the opposite" is hardly the right phrase to use in this situation. Sampling error among different web sites (due to different audiences, traffic rates, etc.) could easily account for the fact that IIS out-edged Apache here.
As for the *successful* part of the author's claim, there was a 0% success rate across all queries directed at servers I either have access to logs on, or directly control. I have also experienced Apache servers being compromised (more often due to user-induced security holes than design flaws.) but in the end, the user leaving a filedrop which allows php scripts to execute, and such, is as dangerous as a buffer overflow. They are each different but functionally equivilant ways to circumvent the security of the system it is running on.
"But it does notexplain why Windows is nowhere to be found in the top 50 list. Windows does not reset its uptime counter. Obviously, no Windows-based web site has been able to run long enough without rebooting to rank among the top 50 for uptime."
Part of the Windows operating system's underlying design involves its file locking symantics. Files in-use by the operating system, providing needed functionality, can't be easily replaced while the system is running. Windows solution? The in-use-file replacement tool is able to change the bits on disk, but not the memory addresses they map to. So, the copy in memory doesn't match the copy on disk -- and the copy in memory is the old (flawed) copy. This is rectified by...you guessed it...refreshing the copy in memory. And what's the easiest way to do this? Reboot the server and reload it from the disk, if the module you're talking about happens to be, say, the Local Security Authority or the Windows Kernel.
I mentioned (with some flawed math) (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=126724&cid=10 600161) in more detail the reasons Windows servers are often down there on the patches. I did miscalculate availablilty. My servers average in the 99.9952% range. Which means they're down for a few hours a year. Sure, not carrier grade, but not too shabby either. Well within the reasonable expectations of most businesses. (Source: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=126724&cid=106 00658 by hehman) Note that the situations where Windows is likely to be used probably aren't nuclear power plants, airplane control software, etc. Thus, the additional powers of 9 aren't really a factor.
"Myth: Open Source is Inherently Dangerous"
I agree with the author here. Having the source code doesn't really have an impact as to whether or not a hacker can find an exploit -- there are enough tools to automate exploit finding in streamed data, especially web connections.
"Myth: Conclusions Based on Single Metrics"
Another valid point. One can spin statistics any way you want to, and have the math be perfectly valid, to reach a meaningless conclusion. Anyone who's taken statis
What this report does is focus on the default potential for abuse by looking at recient publically known issues.
That's handy, though if you only go with that and expect that your systems are secure you'd be better off doing what my friend did.
General rules;
If it's visible over a network, it's potentially abuseable. (http://www.nessus.org, http://www.insecure.org/nmap)
If it's running locally, it's also abuseable. If you don't absolutely positively require it, remove it -- even if it runs by some proxy process (inetd/xinetd or a similar daemon under Windows).
Wrappers, permissions, isolation at the router level...all should be configured.
Monitor log files and check systems. Automate what you can.
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
"And how do you download the latest service packs?"
Certainly not by downloading them directly to the server via IE, that's for sure.
In small shops, you would download the patches with your workstation, and then copy them to the server over the network or using a CD-R, and install them manually.
In larger shops, you would set up a Software Update Services (SUS) server or SMS server to deploy the patches to the servers exactly when you're ready to do so (after testing in your lab first, of course).
You should never be using IE on a critical production server. End of story.
Carpe Cerevisi - Seize the Beer
I found the discussion of server uptime interesting. I know that for just about every Windows Security Patch the server must be rebooted. Given the release of critical security patches about once a month, the servers with 56 day uptimes haven't had the required patches applied and are vulnerable. The expense of redundant equipment necessary to keep windows applications running with no down time is far greater than other OS's.
I'm sorry, I love linux (I use slack at home) but this "report" seems to be nothing more than another "yea linux!" cheerleader piece. I couldn't help but notice the authors' obliviousness to the other side of the argument (I'm not saying Windows is better, far from it, BUT there are points that need to be addressed. ) I was hoping that this would be a calm, well thought out piece on something that I believe in: Linux is more secure and stable than Windows. How I was wrong. What the linux community needs is a comprehensive BELIEVEABLE and intelligent paper on this subject. I need something that I can take to my boss and say, "Look! See, linux is better." If I gave him this paper, he'd laugh and say, "This is why we don't use linux, you people are nuts."
"When I want your opinion, I'll give it to you." --leonstryker
No matter how you cut the vulnerabilities in Win2K3 some of the vulnerabilities are definitely part of IIS 6.0. However I don't believe for a second that Microsoft is reporting all security problems, such as this problem that M$ still hasn't acknowledged.
The Apache group is much more forthcoming about security problems and I don't trust Windows as a server platform.
OK:
1) Windows is not monolithic. If you or the authors of this report knew anything about OS design, you'd know this to be true.
2) They completely forget (or choose to ignore) that Windows was multiuser starting with NT. 2000 was multiuser as well. To say that XP is the first real multiuser Windows is completely false. And they use fast user switching to imply that Windows still isn't a true multi-user OS, which is complete nonsense.
3) From a design perspective, it makes more sense to use the same functionality to communicate with a remote or local machine (ie. it doesn't matter where the other program is).
And Windows is not "constrained" by an RPC model (as they seem to imply by saying that Linux is not).. application programmers can CHOOSE to use RPC, or they can use other methods.
4) This point makes no sense whatsoever:
"By advocating this type of usage, Microsoft invites administrators to work with Windows Server 2003 at
the server itself, logged in with Administrator privileges. This makes the Windows administrator most vulnerable to
security flaws, because using vulnerable programs such as Internet Explorer expose the server to security risks."
That is a complete load of bull $hit.
I am the maverick of Slashdot
Umm. Actually you don't need tags. Right there next to the Submit and Preview buttons is a drop down menu that allows you to select three other formatting options.
They work well.
Now, take a recent Linux box (the distro doesn't matter) and apply all official patches and upgrades, as released by the distro and the various package maintainers.
Each machine must have directly comparable software installed. Where possible, this should actually be the same software. You don't want to have too many variables in this. You're going to have some, but by keeping things uniform, you should be able to keep things sane. The other thing is that you want SOME closed-source software on Linux and SOME open-source software on Windows.
Before we do the tests, we need some diagnostics software on the machines. Memory bounds checkers, system load monitors, host intrusion detection software, etc. This will tell us what impacts we are having, beyond simply seeing if the servers and/or OS fall over or not.
At this point, we get to the tests themselves. Throw absolutely everything you can at the computers. Use every vulnerability scanner on the planet, every worm or trojan you can locate, use stress-testers, etc. Find DoS and DDoS packages, if any have been openly released.
Now we have some actual data, based on comparable usage and comparable attacks. The data will show that the different OS' respond differently to different attacks. (Surprise there, Sherlock!) We now need to determine which of the remaining variables are important.
The remaining variables are "underlying flaws within the OS", "inherent flaws, due to errors in the design methodology itself" and "unequal reporting of equal errors".
What you want to do then is a four-way analysis of variance. The first of the three components is the different vulnerabilites found within the different applications. The second way is looking at the variation between the different vulnerabilities within the OS' themselves. The third way is the variation of bugs reported for any given application, OS or combination, vs. what actually gets reported by groups such as CERT. The fourth way would be the difference in licensing policy.
The NULL Hypothesis for the applications is that all applications will have roughly the same number of vulnerabilities, regardless of what they do, what they're written for, the philosophy of the programmer, and the company producing the software.
It's doubtful you'd find enough applications, and enough vulnerabilities in each, to split the study in sufficient ways to cover all these points. However, it should be possible to collect enough to do a statistically meaningful study on a few of them.
The problem with AOVs is that you've got to have a lot of data, and that the amount of data you need increases very rapidly. You do get plenty of idiots out there who ignore the confidence level and even the methods of the study, looking for any slight comment that proves whatever they're wanting to say. Other times, even nominally sane people will do this, because they want/need the results too fast or too cheaply to do the work properly.
Let's say, for example, that the number of vulnerabilities found within the applications, when studying the variance between them, is pretty random. There's no discernable pattern. Let's also say that there's no significant variance found between FOSS and Closed Source. Then, let's say that we're in the 1% confidence level for both of these, which means that this will likely hold true 99% of the time.
We could then conclude that Closed Source vs. Open Source is purely a matter of personal choice. The net difference simply isn't significant to warrant going for one and ignoring the other.
Continuing with this fictional scenario, let's say that Linux and Windows showes a VERY signficant level of variance. We know, at this point, that it's not the Closed vs. Open nature,
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Check back here for the answer at 3am...
On point 4. It's spot on, not bullshit. I gather you're a window user, but in Unix land you never ever run the GUI as root. Never. What you do is log in as a normal user, browse the internet as a normal user and when you located whatever it is you need to do as root, you go to a console, su and do the root thing there. Why? This makes sure that if you as user catch something on the big bad internet, it doesn't hose your entire system right away. If you run this piece of shit IE as Administrator, any flaw in IE can take over your system, when run as user, it can only take over with user priviliges and might give you time to take countermeasures.
Fair enough - I'll modify my question then. If IE should never be used on production servers, why is IE so heavily integrated into the shell environment in which the server runs?
BTW, to say that the integration of IE in Windows is somehow equivalent to the integration of Konquerer in KDE is rather ridiculous. It is trivial to entirely replace one browser with another on a GNU/Linux system. Eradicating all traces of IE on MS Windows machines is nowhere near as simple.
flossie
Write now. Defend liberty
OK. Remove IE. Boot without a GUI. Change libraries that are currently in use while the system is running.
So, given any hardware you wish, how many different and unique users can use 1 NT 3.x or 4.x system at the same time? What restrictions do you encounter, if any? Are there differences between desktop and 'server' versions of NT in this respect?
[rpc] -- I'll let someone else address that.
This has been addressed by NoOneInParticular, so I won't rehash it.
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
really ? what's this then? :
D:\ResKit>su.exe
UserName required!
above available from nt4.
or "run as" available from win2k?
Look, you'd better to educate yourself before posting.
I don't use KDE so I can't answer that for certain, but I would be very surprised if you couldn't. It is certainly possible to remove all traces of a web browser from the alternative desktop environment: GNOME.
Then again, why would you even want to run KDE or GNOME on a server? You can have a fully functional, graphical GNU/Linux machine without running those extra desktop applications.
Of course, for a server, there is probably no need to run any graphical stuff at all. It is perfectly possible (and common) to have a GNU/Linux server without installing X11 - all configuration can be performed via the command line, or remotely if you prefer a graphical configuration interface.
flossie
Write now. Defend liberty
Does security really matter?
YES
I mean neither Windows nor Linux are secure, we see new ways to exploid them every few weeks or even days
Um, no, there is a huge difference. UNIX applications are usually designed in an inherently secure manner, UNIX file permissions really do make a difference, and UNIX contains mechanisms that can be used to lock the system down to the point where you can give a user "root" access and they still can't modify anything outside the sandbox you set them up in.
Windows does not, in practice, provide some of these kinds of security at all... and others are purely nominal protections at the same level of asking people "are you going to rob the bank" and letting them into the vault if they say "no".
So where on Linux an error that lets someone break out of a CHROOT environment is listed as an "exploit", Windows doesn't even provide that kind of environment so you don't need an exploit to compromise it. When a Windows exploit is listed, it far more often means there's a way of completely compromising your computer and taking it over, rather than just letting the attacker from one locked room to another.
That is, if I was running an "anonymous FTP server", and the server application has a buffer overflow in it, on Windows that exploit would let them inject a backdoor and take over my machine at will, and modify the boot sequence to restart the backdoor if the computer is rebooted. On Linux, they would be able to run the backdoor as an unprivileged user, they wouldn't be able to even see any executable files that could be used to restart the backdoor, and in some configurations they wouldn't even have network access. They would need to find and run two more exploits... one to break out of the CHROOT environment and one to get root privileges... before they could do anything.
This is called "defense in depth". UNIX systems and applications, developed in an environment where you had to give mutually untrusting users access to the same computer at the same time in a timesharing environment, don't break down and give up with one attack.
SO...
Linux, like all UNIX systems, is built around inherent security and defense in depth, which means that it's MUCH harder to get in and MUCH harder to do anything once you are in.
AND...
It's not just a matter of relative popularity... for one example: back when 2/3 of the domains out there were running Apache on Linux, the less than 1/3 remaining IIS servers still represented 2/3 of the domains on the "defaced sites" list.
Slashdot doesn't serve XHTML.
Technically, Slashdot doesn't serve HTML, either. Slashdot serves some markup language that is sufficiently similar to HTML that most browsers can find a reasonable way to render it if they squint at it hard enough.
Of course, the same is true of 99% of the web. Still, you'd think this bastion of geekdom would dare to be different.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
In my expierence sometimes (about 60% of the time) RUNAS just doesn't work. Not that this excuses running as Admin, but if 'ease of use' counts in Windows favor then it is entirely fair to point it this flaw.
There are so many things wrong with that statement in the real world. Perhaps the most important one conceptually, and one that none of the other replies have touched on, is that you don't actually have to intentionally run IE in order for it to get invoked! I hear all the time how if people run Mozilla instead, all the worries with IE are gone, but that's not entirely true. It's a security risk just sitting on the disk, never intentionally used by anyone.
Second, as has already been mentioned, patches and updates? Sure, on a server you probably shouldn't be running a web browser, but you shouldn't have a videocard and monitor on a server either. In the windows world, however, both are required. There is no apt-get, there is no console-only mode.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
But the problem is (if you read the article...) that there are far more processes in Windows that run with privilege than those that are restricted.
To quote TFA:
THAT is what makes Windows different from any other OS and thus more vulnerable.How come Slashdot never gets Slashdotted?
And neither do their windows admins. PHB's think that Windows servers must be easy to admin as they look like Windows desktops. Of course in reality they aren't.