Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

MS Security Chief Says Windows is Safer Than Linux

Posted by Zonk on from the some-press-is-better-than-no-press dept.

Kip Winger writes "Mike Nash, Microsoft's Chief Security Executive, has made claims that Windows is more secure than Linux. In a recent online chat, he staunchly defended Microsoft's record on security, basing part of his argument on how Windows Server 2003's 15 patches in the past year are far less than what RedHat or SuSE have had to endure." He also mentioned the recent purchase of Sybari and their Antivirus product.

2 of 713 comments (clear)

  1. Windows and Red Hat by bruceleekick · · Score: 5, Informative

    Windows 2003 Currently, 5 out of 44 Secunia advisories, is marked as "Unpatched" in the Secunia database. Red Hat rrently, 0 out of 133 Secunia advisories, is marked as "Unpatched" in the Secunia database. I think I would rather take a system that is all patched then one that is Unpatchable.

  2. Re:Apples/Oranges by Daengbo · · Score: 5, Informative
    From here: http://www.honeynet.org/papers/trends/life-linux.p df:
    Recent data from our honeynet sensor grid reveals that the average life expectancy to compromise for an unpatched Linux system has increased from 72 hours to 3 months. This means that a unpatched Linux system with commonly used configurations (such as server builds of RedHat 9.0 or Suse 6.2) have an online mean life expectancy of 3 months before being successfully compromised.
    Compared to unpatched Windows boxes with life expectancies of minutes.
    --
    Put identity in the browser.