Microsoft Silently Backs Favorable Presentation at RSA

lildogie writes "Two researchers, from the Florida Institute of Technology and Boston-based Security Innovation Inc., 'surprised the audience at a computer-security convention last month with their finding that a version of Microsoft Windows was more secure than a competing Linux operating system' according to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. 'This week, the researchers released their finished report, and it included another surprise: Microsoft was funding the project all along.' When will they ever learn?"

Comments

Re:Unsurprising

[SpaceCadetTrav]

Every post so far contains nothing but knee-jerk whining. Did anyone actually look at the claims of the report? Anyone care to see if it the findings might possibly be accurate? How about at least moving past the vauge claims of the submitter? Here's the beef:

The results of the research show that both Linux-based deployments contained more total security vulnerabilities and more "days of risk"-- the amount of time elapsed between public disclosure of a vulnerability and the issuance of a potential fix by a vendor--per vulnerability. The report also includes a separate, step-by-step description of the repeatable methodology, so that others can duplicated and validate the results.

Windows vs. Linux Web Server Security Research Study