Microsoft Claims Linux Security a Myth

black hole sun writes "Microsoft bigwig Nick McGrath claims that Linux security is highly exaggerated, and that the open source development model is 'fundamentally flawed.' The gist of his argument appears to be his claim of lack of accountability among distributors, coupled with generic statements short on facts. 'Who is accountable for the security of the Linux kernel? Does Red Hat, for example, take responsibility? It cannot, as it does not produce the Linux kernel. It produces one distribution of Linux.' He goes on to say that 'Linux is not ready for mission-critical computing. There are fundamental things missing,' pointing out the lack of a development environment and no single 'sign-on system' giving reference to Microsoft's foundering .Net passport program." I guess Linux can only aspire to the greatness of Windows when it has such secure applications as Outlook and Internet Explorer. Historically those have been proven to be of a caliber all their own.

Comments

hmm its not ready???

[josepha48]

I guess I better get rid of all my linux servers right now and replace them with Windows.. oh wait, I saved myself, how many $$$ on licensing costs by not using MS?

Hmm, I'd like to know if anyone here has created a Windows System that is totally runable off a CDROM, like I have with my Linux and BSD distros? I mean, I'd really like to see a hacker hack my CDROM firewall. Lets see them replace ls on a cd-r! Oh wait a minute you can't create a bootable cd-r with windows and make a dedicated firewall using only 32Megs of RAM and a cdrom.

Hmm My favorite security thing about windows lately is the new spy bots. Processes running in your process table that you can't delete. How secure is that?

So what is their defination of 'ready for the enterprise'? Evolution, OpenOffice aren't ready?

What's their defination of 'developer tools'? Perl, gtk+, qt, python, php, C, gcc, kdevelop, qt-developer, aren't developer tools?

You just gotta love that MS FUD!

Linux more secure? Wrong

[matdodgson]

The idea that Linux is more secure than Windows is wrong. All software has bugs and exploits in it waiting to be discovered. It is because we use crappy software development languages like C.

Linux has had less exploits than Windows so far because less people use it therefore less virus writers make virus's for it. Same goes for Outlook/Office. Everyone uses those so there are heaps of exploits for them.

Diversity is more secure than lack of diversity - no single product is greatly more secure than any other.

Yeah right

[ZeroReality]

secure applications as Outlook and Internet Explorer
Secure should not be in the same sentence as Outlook and IE.

Linux is secure because it not widely used. If your going to make a virus you go for the big target and right now that windows.

Like it or not, he does have a point.

[hoppo]

Without ownership, it's difficult to assign culpability when a security flaw is found. Far more flaws have been revealed in MS software than in Linux, but part of the reason is that Microsoft's market share makes them the far bigger target. It should be interesting to see how security plays out as Linux distros gain greater market penetration.