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.

6 of 713 comments (clear)

  1. Saying things makes them true. by bigtallmofo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If you can just manage to say something that gets picked up by major news organizations, then it might make it come true.

    Or at the very least, you might at least fool some people enough to continue to give you money.

    --
    I'm a big tall mofo.
  2. User experience by Matey-O · · Score: 5, Interesting

    (This is not a rant, merely a description of what happened to me receintly:)
    1. reboot computer - It'd hung running something the rhymes with Titborrent.
    2. Login prompt -log in
    3. Get a start button, click on it to start a browser
    3a. lose focus as MS is saying AVG isn't turned on. (It's not?)
    4. Hit start again to get a browser
    4a. Lose focus again as AVG says it's not working.
    5. Press start to start a browser.
    5a. Lose focus as the UPS monitoring tool adversises that it's HERE! PRESENT! ACCOUNTED FOR!
    6. Press Start to get a browser.
    6a. Lose focus AGAIN as MS spyware gives me a status update.
    7. go over to the iBook, it doesn't Constantly Interrupt Your Train of Thought At Every Opportunity!

    --
    "Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus."
  3. Re:Of course the don't include... by aug24 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    2005-to-date appears to be a unique time in history that he can make this claim vaguely valid, but when you just look at the totals for the systems you get different into.

    Secunia totals are...

    Server 2003; 5 unpatched of 44
    Office; 2 unpatched of 7
    Exchange 2003; 1 unpatched of 3
    IIS 6; 1 unpatched of 3
    SQL Server 2000; 1 unpatched of 10
    Total; 10 unpatched of 67

    Justin.
    Apologies for the crap formatting, /. should let me use tabs. So there.

    --
    You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
  4. Re:Apples/Oranges by 3Suns · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Not to mention the fact that Windows bundles their bugfixes in a few patches, whereas Linux fixes each problem separately. You could argue that the former option makes it easier for administrators, but with a proper Linux system, most patches will be applied automatically (or at least effortlessly). MS patches tend to require a system reboot, while security upgrades in Linux usually only require a restart of the program being patched. Besides, patching each bug individually allows for much faster response, and makes tracking easier.

    --

    -3Suns

    ~~~~
    The Revolution will be Slashdotted
  5. Re:What about by pbrammer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How many of those 24 vulns for Red Hat were operating system specific?

  6. Re:What about by cranktheguy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    yesterday i spent an hour fixing a windows 2000 pc. worst case of spyware i have ever seen. it wouldn't let me end the processes i knew were infected. they were running as system services. they reinstalled themselves before as windows finished booting (as in, when adaware runs before you get to windows)! the quote from my roommate: "i didnt install anything." he had been using ie and running as administrator. let's see them patch that.

    --
    yeah, that's about it