Why, if Open Source is so much more insecure, is the "closed source" Microsoft so heavily represented in defacements?
http://www.attrition.org/mirror/attrition/os.html
Since we began collecting OS data, MS has clearly led, representing almost 60% of all defacements, and in recent months, represents closer to 70% of all defacements.
While I won't make extravagant claims of security for Linux or other Open Source OS's (administrators must learn to lock down any "out of the box" system), at least the fantastic counter claims of security through obscurity don't appear to be backed up in the real world.
Remember - if all you have is an axe, every problem looks like hours of fun.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.attrition.org/mirror/attrition/os.html
Since we began collecting OS data, MS has clearly led, representing almost 60% of all defacements, and in recent months, represents closer to 70% of all defacements.
While I won't make extravagant claims of security for Linux or other Open Source OS's (administrators must learn to lock down any "out of the box" system), at least the fantastic counter claims of security through obscurity don't appear to be backed up in the real world.
Remember - if all you have is an axe, every problem looks like hours of fun.