Linux and Windows Security Neck and Neck

Linurati writes "According to vnunet.com, Linux and Windows are neck and neck when it comes to security, but 'misleading figures and surveys are muddying the waters.' The article lays blame on both sides for the misleading information." From the article: "...Microsoft had made real progress on security in the past two years, but that the increasing number of Linux enthusiasts coming into the market would help the open source alternative in the long run."

Comments

I think linux actually has an edge...

[yagu]

I think there are two main factions here, and the answer for what constitutes better security has slightly different context with significantly different results.

1. First, from the article: He added that Microsoft had made real progress on security in the past two years. This is true. But, Microsoft started from an awfully low level of security. And, yes they've done much to automate patches, make updates easier, etc., in my opinion, the one missing piece is they haven't collaborated with the Windows Applications community (Microsoft, itself, and third parties) to figure out the least authorized user problem. So, for the uninitiated, and the lay people, Windows continues to be a world where, out of the box, people set up their boxen with everyone at administrator privelege levels. Heck, most of the times I still go to people's homes and find they don't really even bother to set up separate accounts for users.

   For all of these people their machines are ticking time bombs, and I'm usually the one who gets the call when their world of computer technology explodes. This by itself is reason enough to consider other technologies where by default they are secure. For example, Apple does a good job (not perfect) of making their machines secure... I won't go into great depth -- I'm not a heavy Mac user.

   Also, linux by default comes out of the box with decent security. Even if users do try to just use, e.g., KDE an root only, they (as I recall) have to fight off the big red screen background, kind of like the enunciator lights and bells in cars when you don't fasten your seat belts.

   So, in the lay community, though Windows carries the popular vote, I think linux out of the box is by far the more secure and safe way to go.

2. On the other hand, many companies have wised up (though not all) to the notion of restricting the default access of their employees, i.e., they do not get administrator priveleges to control their own boxen. This creates a more stable, manageable, and secure environment for companies, but at what cost? Given that by the articles own words, "Engates added that his company manages 13,000 servers, roughly half of which are open source and half Microsoft. He claims to see little difference between the security on either platform.", and given that not having administrator access in Windows can be so problematic because of ill conceived applications (see item 1.) and mismatched access to data, if I could forgo reliance on Windows applications I would choose to deploy as much linux in a company as I could.