Study Finds Windows More Secure Than Linux

cfelde writes "A Windows Web server is more secure than a similarly set-up Linux server, according to a study presented yesterday by two Florida researchers." In addition to the Seattle Times article, there is also coverage on VNUnet. From the article: "The researchers, appearing at the RSA Conference of computer-security professionals, discussed the findings in an event, 'Security Showdown: Windows vs. Linux.' One of them, a Linux fan, runs an open-source server at home; the other is a Microsoft enthusiast. They wanted to cut through the near-religious arguments about which system is better from a security standpoint."

Comments

Re:A lot more could certainly be done...

[n0-0p]

It's pretty easy to make Apache chrooted under linux. With Apache2 you still need to allow dynamic libraries though, which often bothers people. Having hardened both Windows and Linux servers on a regular basis, I'd pick Linux every time. It can be locked down much more than Windows. I haven't found anything that compares to a combination of PP buffer protection on binaries, chroot jailed services, iptables, and SELinux policy. I just don't understand why more vendors haven't tried to create default installs that support this level of security.

Quoting the relevant bits.

[LuSiDe]

This is probably FUD but we need solid arguments to debunk it. Slashdot, Groklaw et al can contribute to this but saying its 'crap' right away because of the conclusion which you may dislike is not entering the discussion from a pragmatic or rational point of view (quite the contrary).

I'm gonna give it a try and quote here what I read in the VNUnet article (which is the most informative one IMO since it contains a few details, in contrast to the other one) and try to express some reasoning. Until the real analysis is out we cannot be sure about anything though.

analysed vulnerabilities and patching and were forced to conclude that Windows Server 2003 is more secure than Red Hat Linux.

Classic strategy: minimize your enemy by defining it tightly as a dogma, then attack that dogma. I've seen this from Sun Microsystems as well. Basically, they ignore e.g. Novell. At least Novell is also a big player in terms of market share.

That said I remain interested in learning why they chose to compare to Red Hat and Red Hat alone.

"Vulnerability counts are much higher with Red Hat than with Microsoft," said Dr Ford.

Definition of 'vulnerability counts' and which vulnerabilities are counted. For example, lets say Red Hat has a patch for OpenLDAP while i run LAMP or LAPP then who cares about the fact that there's an OpenLDAP patch? Not me.

In all three cases Windows Server 2003 came out ahead, with an average of 30 "days of risk" between a vulnerability being identified and patched compared to 71 from Red Hat.

71 days is long! How they got to these numbers is also very interesting. For example, does this include e.g. the Mozilla bug which was alleged to be known (but not fixed) in 2001? It reminds me about MSIE for which vulnerabilities took long as well and remember 1 patch != 1 vulnerability either.

"I am a huge Linux fan, and I have a Linux server in my basement. The first time I saw the statistics I thought someone had mucked about with my database."

"There are some people who are sceptical [of the results]," said Dr Thompson. "We would encourage them to replicate this type of study. If you see flaws please tell us."

Statements like these may just as well be from astroturfers. Its also a classic strategy: basically, you play as if you're convinced by the study you conducted yourself while you expected a different result. In all honesty, why would you believe the judgement about the conclusion ("FUD!") from someone who hasn't read the study over the one from the person who's got convinced by his own study? This is why there's not much we can currently do except arguing over the existing details! This is why we need to stress about where the missing details are. This is why we cannot judge yet.

One last note:

"You would be a fool to make platform decisions without thinking about security," said Dr Ford. "When you choose a platform you have to factor in the costs of intrusion. It is not just the costs of a break in; it is the time spent running around making sure no one gets in."

With that last statement he Dr Ford basically says to take this study with a grain of salt because thats precisely what he hasn't researched!