Slashdot Mirror
The Annual US-CERT FUD Festival
Joe Barr writes "Joe Brockmeier and I have teamed up in a story on NewsForge to point out how the mainstream and trade press misrepresent the annual summary of vulnerabilities from US-CERT. They're doing it again this year to make it appear as if it is more secure than UNIX/Linux. Pamela Jones did a similar report at Groklaw over the weekend." From the article: "One figure represents the vulnerabilities found in Windows operating systems: XP, NT, 98, and so on. The other represents a total figure not just for Solaris, AIX, HP-UX, the BSDs, and Linux, but for a hundred different versions of Linux. The sum of all the unique vulnerabilities from all the Linux distros does not equate to the sum of vulnerabilities in any single Linux distro, and one could say the same about the various versions of Windows. That's why it is a completely meaningless exercise to discuss those totals as if they present an accurate picture of the relative security of Windows and Linux. " We've reported on the US-CERT list already this year. NewsForge is a sister site to Slashdot.org, both of whom are owned by OSTG.
It's equally unfair to lump Windows 98, NT, 2000, XP all together. They could be looked at as different "distros" of Windows. Should pick the best or latest OS from each group with the least vulnerabilities to compare.
Shouldn't we be asking the more pertinent question: why do all the various operating systems have so many vulnerabilities? When it comes to such things, this shouldn't be a competition. OS builders should be striving for zero tolerance to vulnerabilities and there shouldn't be an quibbling over the number that exist.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
Good point and I'd like to add, What about the time length between when vulnerabilities are found, and then patched? Surely, they thought about that. Linux and Unix can continue to have more "reported" vulnerabilities than Windows, but if they are patched faster than Windows, doesn't that count for something?
I have nothing clever to put here...
They're doing it again this year to make it appear as if it is more secure than UNIX/Linux.
What is "it"? Slight tinge of paranoia here, maybe?
Let's review the score here:
- It does not matter what material is published, the fact of the matter is that every Windows PC in the world regularly has visible and non-trivial security issues, while on Linux and OS/X these issues are generally theoretical.
- People's perceptions of Windows are very simple: it's a piece of crap that they use because it came with the box and everyone else uses it.
- The relative security of Windows vs. the World is not a deciding factor in most people's use of Windows. It's largely a captive, neutered market.
- For people who actually do care, no amount of statistics can change the visible and perceived situation. When I choose to ban Windows in my company, it's not because I read some website or article. It's because I'm sick and tired of removing spyware from people's PCs.
Complaining about these statistics is to give them credibility. Those who chose on the basis of security will ignore this data, and those who chose on other criteria won't care about this data.
My blog
I'm an automation officer in the U.S. Army, and I know for a fact that we're full of Microsoft shills and contractors with Microsoft loyalties. We don't employ Unix/Linux in an enterprise manner; the government sold its soul to Microsoft years ago. Unix is used on some Army tactical platforms, though. Food for thought.
Whats worse is the fact that a POP3 Client Buffer Overflow on Windows would not be included at all as one doesn't ship with Windows. Linux distros generally ship with thousands of clients and servers while Windows ships with the bare minimum. To do a true security comparion you would have to compare either just kernel exploits with OS exploits, then compare all popular software for windows with all popular software for Linux side by side in a catagory basis (POP3 clients being a catagory)