Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Oracle Has More Flaws Than SQL Server

Posted by kdawson on from the nyah-nyah dept.

jcatcw writes, "Next Generation Security Software Ltd. of Surrey, England, compared bugs in Oracle and SQL Server that were reported and fixed between December 2000 and November 2006. The tally: Oracle had 233; MS SQL had 59. The products compared were Oracle 8, 9, and 10g; SQL Server 7, 2000 and 2005. From the article: '[The head of the survey said,] "The results show that the reputation that Microsoft SQL Server had back in 2002 for relatively poor security is no longer deserved."' Oracle's response: 'Measuring security is a very complex process, and customers must take a number of factors into consideration — including use-case scenarios, default configurations, as well as vulnerability remediation and disclosure policies and practices.'"

3 of 229 comments (clear)

  1. And why by El+Lobo · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    And why did you expect it to be the other way? Because the two letters prefix? Biased.

    --
    It's time to realise that Abble's products are the biggest abomination these days. Just say NO to the dumb iAbble way!!
  2. Re:translation by tbannist · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Remember as long as Microsoft doesn't acklowedge the bug exists, it doesn't count!

    --
    Fanatically anti-fanatical
  3. As someone who knows both very well by floydman · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    The fact that thre are actually ppl who are comparing Oracle RDBMS with MSSQL is hilarious.
    I did not read TFA..and I think its a waste of time to do so.

    I mean you can compare Oracle with DB2 (and that wouldn't be fair yet...but at least i will start listening)

    BUT MSSQL is barely comapred to MS Access...

    enough said.

    --
    The lunatic is in my head