Study Finds Windows More Secure Than Linux 796
cfelde writes "A Windows Web server is more secure than a similarly set-up Linux server, according to a study presented yesterday by two Florida researchers." In addition to the Seattle Times article, there is also coverage on VNUnet. From the article: "The researchers, appearing at the RSA Conference of computer-security professionals, discussed the findings in an event, 'Security Showdown: Windows vs. Linux.' One of them, a Linux fan, runs an open-source server at home; the other is a Microsoft enthusiast. They wanted to cut through the near-religious arguments about which system is better from a security standpoint."
Just what we need... (Score:4, Insightful)
Another study (Score:5, Funny)
Knock Knock Joke (Score:5, Funny)
Who's there?
Knock Knock.
Who's there?
Knock Knock.
Who's there?
Knock Knock.
Who's there?
Knock Knock.
Who's there?
Knock Knock.
Who's there?
Knock Knock.
Who's there?
Phillip Glass
My 8 year old daughter, a great afficionado of knock knock jokes, didn't appreciate it.
Knocking music (Score:5, Funny)
Who's there?
Knock Knock.
Who's there?
nock Knock.K
Who's there?
ock Knock.Kn
Who's there?
ck Knock.Kno
Who's there?
kKnock. Knoc
Who's there?
Knock. Knock
Who's there?
Steve Reich
She probably wouldn't like that one any better.
Knock Knock Joke Revisted (Score:5, Funny)
Who's there?
Who's there?
Is anyone there?
Who's there?!
- John Cage
Is that too obscure?
Integrity? (Score:5, Informative)
Well, apparently this is the second time Microsoft has come out on top of a research project by Mr. Richard Ford [fit.edu].
http://www.virusbtn.com/magazine/articles/letters/ 2004/01_01.xml [virusbtn.com]
Apparently there was some question to the validity of an earlier project because it was sponsored by Microsoft.
However, I would like to note that both researchers seem very well educated, especially in computer security. And, additionally, they both note that a lot more could be done to lock down the Linux server.
A lot more could certainly be done... (Score:5, Insightful)
OpenBSD runs chroot() Apache. Does IIS have similar capability?
The chroot() patch was never taken up, but it would probably not be that difficult to install on Linux.
I would be disinclined to run any other way at this point.
Re:A lot more could certainly be done... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:A lot more could certainly be done... (Score:5, Informative)
Of course, running anything chrooted usually requires making a list of subprocesses that the program calls, and linking them into the program's directory tree. You'd want to do this in this case, because web servers typically do invoke some subprocesses. Not always, of course; some web sites are completely static. In any case, this doesn't require any sort of patch; just a list of what files are needed in the chroot area.
So what's in the OpenBSD chroot patch? What sort of vulnerability existed without it?
Re:A lot more could certainly be done... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Integrity? (Score:5, Insightful)
Their criteria included the number of reported vulnerabilities and their severity, as well as the number of patches issued and days of risk -- the period from when a vulnerability is first reported to when a patch is issued.
I hoped for a deeper analysis, like the security model used or how it behaves in networks. But it just back to counting vulnerabilities.
--Nothing to see here, move on.
Re:Integrity? (Score:5, Insightful)
Another is that just counting vulnerabilities gives you a worst-case scenario. However, my practical experience suggests that if there aren't any script kiddie tools or viruses out there that take advantage of said vulnerability, your chances of getting compromised through it are exceedingly small.
I'd also like to see some weighting for the likelihood of an attack succeeding through a given vulnerability. I'm going to be a lot more scared of the exploit that works every time than I am the buffer-overflow that lets you run arbitrary code, but only works once in a blue moon.
Granted, these studies will never have that info; they aren't meant to mean anything, they are just mindcandy for the PHBs put together by industry pundits looking for a quick paycheck or some attention. If I were really looking for a security analysis or comparison that included an open source server that ran on x86 hardware, I would expect OpenBSD to be one of the operating systems tested.
Re:Integrity? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, this tells us most of what we need to know. If we want our system to be considered secure, the way to do it is: 1) Don't report vulnerabilities; 2) Don't issue security patches.
Linux pretty much has to lose a contest that is judged this way.
Re:Integrity? (Score:3, Interesting)
From TFA :
On average, the Windows setup had just over 30 days of risk versus 71 days for the Red Hat setup, their study found.
Even if they "included" the number of vulnerabilities and did not base their report on that, they drew their conclusions from the number of "days of risk"... ain't much better if you ask me... it's what?
Re:Integrity? (Score:5, Insightful)
I challenge the assumption that Redhat vulnerabilities are equal to Microsoft vulnerabilities.
Given the history of malware, they clearly are not.
This study is nothing more than a more formalized version of a certain form of trolling once popular on COLA.
Re:Integrity? (Score:5, Insightful)
The correct answer is the one with the better administrator. You can have a Linux box locked down tight, and a Windows box wide open. You can also have the inverse. Probe around, and you will find boxes of all those flavors out there. It all depends on the competence of the guys running it. The competence of the administrator at running the system he is running has a much larger effect on overall security than which OS is chosen.
They do mention they are not "wizards" (Score:3, Insightful)
And you're going to need those resources if you're not a "wizard". Open Source software is not as easy to use as most MS products, and in many cases the documentation isn't very good either.
Re:They do mention they are not "wizards" (Score:3, Interesting)
People who don't know what they are doing should definitely not be running a web server. I'm sorry, but it is far easier for someone to pay $4/month for geocities to host their personal web site than it is to configure IIS, run dyndns (or call ISP and set up a static IP address), etc. etc.
Stupid people running stupid web servers is the reason why we had code red in the first place.
Re:More FUD (Score:5, Funny)
And, to the grandparent -- if you read your own link, the previous study was not sponsored by Microsoft.
Re:More FUD (Score:3, Insightful)
A study comes out saying Linux is better than Windows? Praise it to high heavens! We knew it all along!
A study comes out saying Windows is better than Linux? Question the results, Impugn the source and dig as deep as it takes to find some political or financial affiliation between them and Microsoft, no matter how assinine or inconsequential.
The Real Truth... (Score:5, Insightful)
An OS is only as secure as it's admin is competent. This will NEVER change no matter what platform you are dealing with.
If you give some RedHat CDs to a complete goof off and have them install it on a system that is going to be directly exposed to the internet, that box is going to get rooted eventually. It might take longer to get rooted than a Windows box, but it will be cracked.
If you give Windows 2003 Server to a knowledgable admin, he will secure the box and make certain that the likelihood of it getting cracked is fairly low. He will know not to put the box on the internet until he's applied all SPs and critical updates. He will know to use an internal SUS or WUS to make sure that the box is updated without exposure to the internet.
If you give a complete moron who *thinks* he knows all about [insert platform] any installation media, you're going to have an insecure box.
It's been my experience that the best people to set up an internet exposed box using any OS are people who are most familiar with all OSes and have a good understanding of how to secure each one. It's not that hard to hit the main security points and still keep on top of all OSes. However, since egos aer so intrinsically tied to how secure a box is, people point the finger at the OS distributor. Sure, they are to blame in many cases, but the implementor is usually far more guilty of being lax. That's the hard truth and it cannot be refuted.
Re:The Real Truth... (Score:5, Insightful)
Windows isn't "just another OS"... it has the rather unique position of being on a substantial number of desktops in people's homes. In and of itself this is not a problem and requires no greater security, however, a significant percentage of _THOSE_ systems are also on the Internet. And of course, the problem is that most people are simply not qualified to do a respectable job of administering and securing their home computer. Which brings us to the point you mention. The security problem with Windows are primarily caused by the inescapable fact that most of its users *ARE* ignorant when it comes to security and the fact that MS chooses to continue to market its products at this demographic while at the same time ignoring security issues or sweeping them under the rug is why people may be inclined to blame the operating system or Microsoft for the problems.
Although, interesting enough, if Darwinism really works, Windows users may ultimately adapt to having to always struggle to keep their boxes secure, and perhaps even end up being better than most Unix gurus at home computer security. Time will tell.
Re:The Real Truth... (Score:5, Funny)
If anything, it works the opposite way, with people who don't care to get too deeply into computers and technical stuff having far more sex.
Re:The Real Truth... (Score:5, Insightful)
The primary questions include:
1) How *securable* is the OS?
2) How gracefully do services respond to failures?
Secondary questions (addressed in this study) include:
1) How secure is the OS *by default.*
2) What constitutes a typical setup?
Now, personally I don't care much about these secondary questions from a secure server perspective. Linux security is easier than Windows security, and Linux is more securable than Windows. A lot of this is because Windows depends on things like RPC which does not fail gracefully.
On the other hand, you can mitigate a lot of this risk by proper security practices. A skilled admin is going to be trying to balance usability and security and will do it well if given the approrpiate tools.
Again the quesition should be "how securable" rather than "how secure" for exactly the reason you mention.
Re:The Real Truth... (Score:4, Insightful)
Think of the gold in Fort Knox as your personal information, and think of the fort itself as the server or PC.
Fort Knox is not secure because it was easy to do, nor is it secure because they spent ungodly amounts of money securing it. Fort Knox is secure because it was well thought out, well implemented, and has been modeled after the sum of innumerable years of open ideas about how to build a stronghold. The idea of hiding all that gold under a rug and hoping nobody will notice is utterly absurd. All it would take is for someone to accidentally kick the rug or tell just one person where the gold is and its all over. Conversely all it would take is just one person to talk about a hole in Fort Knox to have the entire Army in Kentucky in a matter of hours.
Re:More FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
It is useful as an anecdotal example. Especially in the area of security, where real security tends to mean knowing a lot of very specific examples of how things can go wrong. Documenting how these guys could have inadvertently left holes open would be useful. Then we need several hundred more such paired tests, with a more extensive report listing all the ways that admins of both systems can get it wrong.
But concluding that, because two guys didn't get it right in a single test, therefore one of the systems is more or less secure than the other, shows little other than a total lack of understanding what security is all about.
That, or intentional FUD on the part of either or both.
I'd go with the lack of understanding. People are really good at generalizing from a single case with no statistical significance.
Re:More FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a critical difference. So many people pour over the Apache source code that most vulnerabilities are discovered prior to when they actually become "in the wild" exploits. The same cannot be said about MS IIS. Worse, the odds are very good that many the IIS exploits were in the wild prior to when they were first publicly reported, while most of the Apache exploits were, in all likelihood, patched prior to the first exploit.
When viewed from that perspective, the Windows/IIS server was likely vulnerable to exploit for many, many more weeks than the Linux/Apache server. And that assumes that half the vulnerabilities are ever even reported. With a closed source product, there could be tons of security holes being subtly exploited by clever crackers every day and there would be no way to find out about it.
No, this article is pure and unadulterated FUD.
There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
---Benjamin Disraeli
Re:More FUD (Score:4, Informative)
Did you read the article? The server tested is Windows 2003. The web server is IIS 6.0. These "many exploits" that you refer to, which ones are they? Last time I checked there were no reported remote exploits for IIS 6.0. There ARE exploits for 2003 as a platform, but not for 6.0 as a product.
Re:More FUD (Score:5, Informative)
Having read TFA, the "study" consisted of counting security flaws for RH and Windows, and comparing how long it took to issue patches -- from the date of the vulnerability being announced. This is really shallow; we've seen lots of such studies and laughed at them. I note the spin put on this is "One of them, a Linux fan, runs an open-source server at home..." which makes it look like a Linux zealot has been hacked in his own home, while the happy Windows guy is unscathed. In fact, it was all hypothetical, there were no trials of real servers (none mentioned anyway), just "potential" vulnerabilities in default setups.
Once again, RTFA! (Score:5, Insightful)
From TFA:That sounds good. A real comparision of real services running on real servers.
But wait!They aren't real setups.
And it gets worse.Hmmmm, I wonder if they included the info from www.eeye.com http://www.eeye.com/html/research/advisories/AD20
So, a "study" that doesn't test any real world criteria is somehow valid?
Oh, it's not that the study is not valid, it's that pointing out the flaws in the study shows the groupthink on
And pointing out that perceived groupthink gets you mod'ed up as "insightful".
Re:More FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, many OSS exploits are theoretical in nature... if a strcpy() passes an unchecked ptr and some coder sees this... whether or not that code could have been exploited... he fixes it and out goes the patch. Its a patch for something that may have never been even able to be taken advantage of. That would never happen in a commercial project. All this study shows is that these researchers define security as the ability to hide security problems as long as possible until a patch is ready and if the patch never gets ready, just never tell anyone about the problem. Following the two above stated rules would easily make any software company "secure" by their standards. As stated previously, their criteria was # of patches and time to release. Time to release is shortened by waiting until the patch is ready (which Microsoft does) and # of patches is shortened by simply not releasing non-major patches and just rolling them out with the next version. The criteria these guys used was meaningless and if anything shows that linux is doing something right if they are updating several times more programs with only twice the delay (which i really doubt is the true delay time). One other thing worth noting, the Ford guy has been paid by Microsoft several times to do studies and release them in favor of MS, I'd hardly call him a true linux fan. Maybe this time they just covered it up better... you wouldn't want to bite the hand that feeds you.
Regards,
Steve
These studies are pointless. Both can be secure (Score:5, Insightful)
A webserver needs port 80 and maybe 443 open. Any webserver can be secured.
Where's the news?
Re:These studies are pointless. Both can be secure (Score:3, Insightful)
>
> A webserver needs port 80 and maybe 443 open. Any webserver can be secured.
A workstation doesn't even need that.
Not counting the (numerous) local exploits caused by IE, WMP, Outleak and other applications getting pwn3d by their handling of hostile content, the big (i.e. "remotely exploitable without user intervention") holes in Windows all stem from M$'s unstated design assumption that "all the world's an office LAN", and the open/liste
Re:These studies are pointless. Both can be secure (Score:5, Informative)
Insighfull? Not really. (Score:3, Informative)
Newsflash... ONE Linux Fan.. (Score:5, Insightful)
A Linux enthusiast at the RSA Conference in San Francisco has reluctantly concluded that Microsoft produces more secure code than its open source rivals.
In an academic study due to be released next month Dr Richard Ford, from the Florida Institute of Technology, and Dr Herbert Thompson, from application security firm Security Innovation, analysed vulnerabilities and patching and were forced to conclude that Windows Server 2003 is more secure than Red Hat Linux.
Now, I'll concede that Dr. Ford and Dr. Thompson do sound reputable, but one is an admitted Windows enthusiast and while the other one is a Linux fan who changed his minds, this hardly sounds like a study
It's an interesting question, and I'm sure there is no clear cut answer, but a more systematic study (with more parties, rather than just two scientists) is going to be needed to answer this sort of question before the 'results' are trumpetted. I'm sure Microsoft will pick this one up and run with it, however.. more of those annoying ads that seem peppered throughout Slashdot.
Not only that, but I find this quote odd.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Umm, so MS showed him their source code? I find that a little hard to believe.
If he can't see the source, how can he make any determination at all?
Re:Not only that, but I find this quote odd.. (Score:3, Interesting)
While windows can indeed be secure enough for most situations if well administered, the truth is that most is not well administered and even then there is the constant
Re:Newsflash... ONE Linux Fan.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm getting a little disturbed at the way all pro-Linux studies are being accepted and all other studies are being dismissed here. Critical thinking should always be welcome. And, yes, Linux is NOT perfect, it is NOT flawless, and it IS full of security holes like anything else. Nobody should take their operating systems so personally that they feel attacked when Linux is criticized.
Note that this doesn't go for everybody. But there are a lot of zealots in the community who need to learn to see outside their own perspective.
Linux thrives on criticism (Score:5, Insightful)
Linux is awesome, this study doesn't change that but we always need to work to make it better and easier to secure. Critics of Linux are our best friends, because they do the work of finding out where we need to improve for free.
The best thing about linux is that when people have a legitimate complaint, it's well within our power to fix it! If Linux is temporarily less secure, so what? After reading this, everyone will adapt their linux distros to render the complaints moot.
This is part of why we love open source, right?
Also I think the point here was particularly good (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not all that useful to research how tight a competent admin can lock down a box because the answer for almost any OS is "very well". You get a good admin that knows their OS and is on top of things, they can keep anything secure, even Windows. So it's not of much use to say a compentent Linux admin can make a secure system, we already knew that.
It is useful, however, to know that a less competent admin will have trouble. More useful would be to know what specificly need to be done to fix it, but just knowing that it's a problem is a start. If Linux continues to gain in popularity, more people that are not as competent will be running it. While you can never truly protect someone from themselves, there are things you can do to make things more secure for those that don't know what they are doing, and that's a good thing for Linux developers to be looking in to.
Re:Newsflash... ONE Linux Fan.. (Score:4, Insightful)
When a study is contradictory to most peoples direct experience and observations they tend to be heavily skeptical. If a study was released saying the sky is really mauve, not blue, people are also going to be pretty dismissive. When was the last time you read about a Unix/Linux worm or virus on a nontechnical site like CNN? Or heard about it on the evening news? Ever heard these things about Windows? This isn't to say that the study is invalid, just that they better have a damn good case if they expect to convice anyone.
Re:Newsflash... ONE Linux Fan.. (Score:3, Insightful)
As right people should be dismissive. The sky is neither mauve nor blue, it has no colour. Blue light scatters in the atmosphere causing it to look blue.
Nearly half that article had nothing to do with Linux or Windows security.
Re:Newsflash... ONE Linux Fan.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Newsflash... ONE Linux Fan.. (Score:3, Informative)
Exactly. Regardless of the validity of the study the Linux community should be taking this the same way they've taken other comparisons in the past: as a spur to make the changes and improvements necessary to make Linux simply that much better than the opposition.
Right now that means, if you're a developer
Re:Newsflash... ONE Linux Fan.. (Score:5, Informative)
Um, no. Your average system administrator earns about $62k has at least 2 years experience, and generally a bachelors degree in a related field. At least according to most industry figures. [salary.com]
The job title also entails tweaking system configurations for security, evaluating patches, etc. etc.
Not again... (Score:5, Insightful)
So Windows is more secure than Red Hat because Microsoft chooses to report less vulnerabilities and release less patches? Hmmm...
(Move along, nothing new to see here.)
Re:Not again... (Score:3, Insightful)
Your post has to be the fourth one I've seen that has said the exact words "Move along. Nothing to see here."
Why so desperate for people to not see it? Linux is not flawless. In fact, it's not been the best of years for it (Firefox as well). I'm sorry, but as popularity grows, so will the security reports pointing out the inherent flaws in
Re:Not again... (Score:3, Insightful)
Non Story (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Non Story (Score:4, Insightful)
Red Hat = Linux
Microsoft > Red Hat since it announces less vulnerabilities
Therefore Microsoft > Linux by the transitive assumption...
Seriously though, that's the problem with EVERY SINGLE one of these "security studies" -- they don't "study" anything, but they do "research" -- and they always use the same, weak argument as described above.
The security of a server... (Score:5, Insightful)
Now let the flaming begin, so you can all argue about the number of patches/updates required for each system, how long it takes for Linux/Windows to respond to problems, and all that good stuff. We all know that's the only reason this kind of story shows up on Slashdot is to start a good flame/troll war!
Re:The security of a server... (Score:3, Insightful)
-----------
Both were in the most basic configuration, an approach that some in the audience suggested may tilt the results in favor of Windows, which comes with more features.
Ford said the idea was to represent what an average system administrator may do, as opposed to a "wizard" who could take extra steps to provide plenty of security on a Linux setup, for instance.
---------
Define 'Wizard', and this may be informative. Ot
Re:The security of a server... (Score:3, Interesting)
As to whether it was a poor experiment or not, show me the data.
Self-Evident (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm no zealot (Score:5, Insightful)
No matter how fast a patch is issued, you still have to install it for it to work.
Delay in announcing MS vulnerabilities? (Score:5, Insightful)
Enthusiast?! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Enthusiast?! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:It's a defensive posture (Score:3, Interesting)
As far as it can go as a novelty act? Apache runs 50% of the internet, Firefox alone has has 25 million downloads, Bind runs a large portion of the DNS infrastructure. YOU are the novelty act with your shiny graphics that consume 50% of your CPU, worthless office applications that "enable business" by locking up constantly, and not being able to boot XP without a 150mb footprint.
We were here before you and we'll be here after you're gone.
Hardly a study (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, but this "study" is not a study.
Why was this even posted?
Re:Hardly a study (Score:3, Insightful)
Well at least it's nice... (Score:3, Insightful)
RTFA then talk (Score:5, Funny)
"Believe it or not, a Windows Web server is more secure than a [i]similarly set-up[/i] Linux server, according to a study presented yesterday by two Florida researchers."
So when you load a linux server with software that has known security holes....they are both equally as secure.
It's not groundbreaking news.
In other news . . . (Score:3, Funny)
Reproducebility? (Score:4, Insightful)
Such professional sources (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll take a nice report by computer scientists and security experts about overall system design over crap papers like this any day.
"Days of Risk" vs. Full Disclosure (Score:5, Insightful)
Secondly, there's no discussion of how the criticality of a vulnerability was weighed. If every "day of risk" for Windows was "critical," and every "day of risk" for RedHat was "moderate," then I'd differ with their conclusions. Further, there was no mention of whether they considered actual exploits in the wild.
Severity of Vulnerabilities? (Score:3, Insightful)
"The pair examined the number of vulnerabilities reported in both systems and the actual and average time it took to issue patches. In all three cases Windows Server 2003 came out ahead, with an average of 30 "days of risk" between a vulnerability being identified and patched compared to 71 from Red Hat."
There is nothing said about the severity of the vulnerabilities. This article would never make it in a peer reviewed publication.
Study did not prove Windows more secure than linux (Score:3, Insightful)
My problem. (Score:3, Insightful)
If a company or individual is actually doing this how on Earth can they possibly attest to the security of their server?
Hope This Study Didn't Cost Much (Score:3, Interesting)
Many of the vulnerabilities were of low risk to us, but it was rare for the system owners to say that even with this low risk that it was acceptable to hold off on applying the patches.
Also in the news... (Score:5, Funny)
Basic is not just stupid, it's asking for it (Score:3, Interesting)
Come on, who runs a Windows box on the web without heavy firewalling, software firewalling (blackice with autoblocking for instance) and regular audits?
The same goes for Linux. Security is not something to be taken lightly. People should NOT be putting machines out in the open. The best practice used to be Firewall critical servers. The best practice has become Firewall, IDS, and monitor the crap out of anything touching the internet.
These tests are always like comparing a Factory Model to a Nascar Stock Car.
The article doesn't actually tell you anything (Score:3, Interesting)
From an admin perspective, I want to know what the vulnerbilities were, and what their definition of "vulnerable" is - especially if they say "Windows had 30 days of vulnerbaility, versus 71 for Linux".
On that topic, when are we going to get past the label "Linux"? There is no such thing. There's RedHat, SuSe, Gentoo, and Debian (among hundreds of others) and they all handle security differently. I'm sure I could find distros LESS secure than Windows, and I'm sure I could find distros unquestionably MORE secure, as well.
Ah, well, I guess I'll wait for the report. I would have preferred a headline:
"OS Zealots Face Off in an Anecdotal RedHat vs. Windows Web Server Security Showdown - IIS Triumphs"
A valid comparison? (Score:4, Insightful)
Horribly flawed (Score:5, Insightful)
Are they joking? Their metric (reported vulnerabilities) is absurd for a number of reasons.
1) Microsoft reports only a fraction of its vulnerabilities. Remember when Win2000 had over 65000 known (to Microsoft) flaws? No more than a handful were ever reported. Microsoft reports flaws only after bearing enormous public humiliation. Of course Microsoft's flaw count is going to be low. Microsoft hides them all until forced to disclose.
2) Linux vendors report every hair out of place. It doesn't matter if the flaw causes a D to look like an O on the third day of the Summer Solstice, but only if that day matches the 4th digit of PI, and only if the computer has calculated the cure for cancer at exactly 15 milliseconds after the user's orgasm.
3) Seriousness of vulnerabilities. Due to the nature of full disclosure under Linux, it will -always- have higher reported flaw counts than Windows. The vast majority of reported Linux flaws, however, are relatively benign, while the vast majority of reported Windows flaws hand over complete control of your computer to some third party.
4) Widespread Propagation. Windows, by its intended design, makes propagating exploits to these vulnerabilities trivially easy (automatic, actually), while this has yet to be accomplished on Linux (and likely won't be).
Sorry, but this "study" is complete nonsense.
Re:Horribly flawed (Score:3, Insightful)
Quality Research (Score:5, Insightful)
If you lean WAAAY over to the left... (Score:5, Insightful)
The researchers used reported vulnerabilites as their guideline, and 'days of risk;' quote: "the period from when a vulnerability is first reported to when a patch is issued."
Windows Server 2003 had 30 days of risk, Linux (Red Hat Enterprise Server 3) 71 days.
But which reports of vulns are they considering? Microsoft often provides their own reports, which are released WITH THE PATCH. I wouldn't give those reports the same weight, since the vuln could have been there (and unofficially known) for MONTHS.
I fully expect Linux to have MORE vulns in any case, since Linux ultimately is a collection of separate programs working together, each of which has their own potential insecurities. But, a vuln in sendmail is NOT going to affect my webserver, because I'm going to turn that OFF (if I'm a smart admin).
In fact, the researchers only used a "hypothetical" system to show "what an average system administrator may do." I'm sorry, but if an admin is using anything like a default setup he is BELOW average.
In conclusion, this really sounds like a comparison of how vulnerable the respective systems with a 'default' install. Wake me up when they go head-to-head with OpenBSD.
P.S. Hey researchers- RED HAT IS NOT LINUX.
How these statistics could mislead... (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know which OS has more risks, has a greater delay between discovery and announcement, or has a greater delay between patch availability and patch application. Does MS or Linux get more slack from vulnerability finders? Do MS or Linux admins patch faster? DOes MS or Linux get more vulnerabilities? These data points would help evaluate the true risk.
Yet another joke study... (Score:3, Interesting)
One is that as someone pointed out earlier [slashdot.org], the 'linux enthusist' has accepted research grants from Microsoft before. That's a little suspect.
Two is the data they present as 'proof' that windows is more secure, the delay between announcement and patch. "the Windows setup had just over 30 days of risk versus 71 days for the Red Hat setup". Besides the point that it doesn't prove one more secure than the other, Microsoft has released patches the same day they announced the exploit because they've kept it supressed.
Three, if your server is behind a firewall (as all web servers should be!), you need to protect two ports and the software associated with them. Did they limit the study to just those details? Or was this a stock install of these machines directly on the internet?
And fourth, there was no demonstration, this was simply an announcement by two guys who ran some numbers against an undisclosed exploit database. Which thing was it that ran 71 days or stretched everything that long? How many total exploits was it? If I had 2 exploits on redhat, one at one day and one at 141 days, but 10 exploits on windows varying from 1 day to how many days for the ASN exploit... which is more secure again?
Stock install, no patches, then yes, I would say the windows server is more 'secure' than the linux server, dispite vulnerabilities in each. But that's like saying that this screen door is more secure than this paper door.
True article, false title. Redhat != Linux (Score:3, Informative)
So, the research is very true - a straight redhat install with no outside packages does have longer windows of vulnerability than a straight Windows install with no outside packages. But the person writing the article told a MAJOR LIE when summarizing it for the article, by attributing the long windows of time to linux in general, when really it's a problem with just redhat.
My God They're Right!!!! (Score:5, Funny)
and run to the store and buy me Server 2003(TCO $599-$3522 + Licencing).
Definitly not going for RHEL(TCO $349-$2499 + Licencing) because no matter how hard I try, I could never get as secure with up2date, SELinux, Pax and Firefox as I could be with Windows Update, Third party antivirus, Windows Firewall and Security Center. NEVER!
And I shouldn't even be comparing Fedora to Server 2003 because Fedora could never be used as a server of any kind. Neither could Slackware(TCO $0.00), Suse(TCO ~$100.00), Mandrake(TCO ~$100.00), Debian(TC0 $0.00) or any other of those insecure Linux distros! They're not SOLD as servers so they absolutely cannot be compared to server 2003. No way, never, uh-uh.
Wow! This study has really opened my eyes to the lie. Why did I abandon my XP installation(TCO $200.00) after only a few dozen major worm outbreaks? I could have done anything on XP that I can do in Linux. It would only have cost be a few thousand dollars, but I could have!
These researchers have really opened my eyes to the lies. I believe everything they say, even without the data to prove it they.....
Ok here my sarcasm must crack under the sheer enormity of the following statement.
The pair said that they lacked the funding to test other operating systems, such as the Apple OSX kernel(TCO $100.00), although they thought it was "amazingly" stable.
WTF!? Are these guys for real? Is this study just a troll? I mean... WTF!!?
I will however take a wild guess that their next server security study will have OpenBSD mysteriously absent.
Most Basic and typical installation (Score:3, Interesting)
The article states that the configurations where done using the typical, basic options that an adminisrator may do and not any kind of security wizard.
I would like to know how many companies are out there that would take their pimply faced intern and have him to a default installation for an internet server with databases on it. They may have found a valid point, but their premise is fucking retarded.
I have always given MSFT the benefit of the doubt that they would have the option to configure a server with the intention of meeting security requirements and similarly doing the same with Linux and then see who's the most secure. While Microsoft has made ground against the *NIXes of the world, I really don't believe that a reasonable attempt at security is any better on Windows than it is on Linux. Considering the damage they've been suffering, I would expect their default installations to be increasinbly severe.
I would equate this study to testing the security of a 4 foot high brick wall or a 3 foot high set of four horizontal wires. The wall is obviously more secure, until you turn on the high voltage supply to the electric fence...
I've seen it in action (Score:3, Informative)
The faculty that ran the *nix based services had almost no complaints of intrusion or other security problems from the "global" IS department of the university, while some of the windows using faculties were being threatened with losing their internet access because of too many security breaches.
No, this isn't a study. But it's evidence of how it works in the real world.
The reason I think *nix is more secure is because of how configurable it is. You can configure almost anything. Hell, you could write your own TCP drivers if you felt like it (not that I've ever known anyone to do that). On Windows you're limited to the security options given to you from the vendor. Or you have to pay a 3rd party for their innovation... With *nix the power is in your hands.
'Out of the box' software/systems are usually never ready for production environments right? But sufficiently tweaked most systems can be reasonably secure and centrally manageable. I just think that level of tweakability is higher with *nix.
FUD and a Never-Will-Be-True Assertion (Score:5, Insightful)
But, RH isn't Linux. Linux is many distributions, some good, some not so good, but if you take the pool of Linux administrators against the pool of Windows administrators, you'll find Linux administrators are more knowledgeable about their systems and do smarter things in securing them. This isn't as true as it was a few years ago before the reluctant Windows administrative masses took refuge in RedHat, but you won't see _any_, not even one Linux defector to Windows. Perhaps BSD, but definitely _not_ Windows!
I've never seen one of my Slackware servers (running sendmail, _even_ and FrontPage extensions with PHP on the Apache server) compromised. It's never happened in the 10 years I've been using them.
I've been wasting a lot of time lately poring through logs for a new project and it's ludicrous how much additional coding I've had to put into my Perl scripts to make allowances for compromised Windows boxes that have inundated my web server with traffic during their Code Red and Slammer compromises, not to mention all the other little oddities Windows clients do when downloading mp3s from the server, such as client caching and sending 32k+ search strings in the URL. It creates work to have these obnoxiously configured client machines on the Internet.
I'm not going to complain too loudly since without all these Windows users on the Internet surfing my site, there wouldn't be much of interest to process in these logs, but to assert Windows as more secure than Linux?! Really....
Could someone please post the name of which Micro$oft C?O's budget backed this study, so we can move on to a more interesting and valid discussion?
Hmm... true (Score:3, Insightful)
I would have to agree. Windows IIS servers are insecure, if you set up an Apache server similarly (insecure), it will also be insecure.
Bruce Schneier on Linux security (Score:5, Informative)
Bruce Schneier [schneier.com]
Posted on January 06, 2005 at 01:45 PM
------------
Different methodology, different results. My money's on Schneier.
Quoting the relevant bits. (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm gonna give it a try and quote here what I read in the VNUnet article (which is the most informative one IMO since it contains a few details, in contrast to the other one) and try to express some reasoning. Until the real analysis is out we cannot be sure about anything though.
Classic strategy: minimize your enemy by defining it tightly as a dogma, then attack that dogma. I've seen this from Sun Microsystems as well. Basically, they ignore e.g. Novell. At least Novell is also a big player in terms of market share.
That said I remain interested in learning why they chose to compare to Red Hat and Red Hat alone.
Definition of 'vulnerability counts' and which vulnerabilities are counted. For example, lets say Red Hat has a patch for OpenLDAP while i run LAMP or LAPP then who cares about the fact that there's an OpenLDAP patch? Not me.
71 days is long! How they got to these numbers is also very interesting. For example, does this include e.g. the Mozilla bug which was alleged to be known (but not fixed) in 2001? It reminds me about MSIE for which vulnerabilities took long as well and remember 1 patch != 1 vulnerability either.
Statements like these may just as well be from astroturfers. Its also a classic strategy: basically, you play as if you're convinced by the study you conducted yourself while you expected a different result. In all honesty, why would you believe the judgement about the conclusion ("FUD!") from someone who hasn't read the study over the one from the person who's got convinced by his own study? This is why there's not much we can currently do except arguing over the existing details! This is why we need to stress about where the missing details are. This is why we cannot judge yet.
One last note:
With that last statement he Dr Ford basically says to take this study with a grain of salt because thats precisely what he hasn't researched!
Were forced to conclude... (Score:3, Funny)
I see.
Related article (Score:3, Informative)
do I care? (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe Red Hat is less secure than Windows, who cares. They both have greater than zero security holes, which makes them both insecure. All I know is I have a fairly secure server and I know how to set up another one for zero dollars on my lunch break. Plus djb has a $500 reward for security holes in his software, I don't see Microsoft even pretending they have anything like that.
Folks, don't fool yourself. Both Windows and Linux distros are mostly crappy software full of holes. It doesn't need to be that way, and admins shouldn't need to be "wizards". But that's how it is.
At least with Linux you 1) don't have to pay and 2) have access to the source code. I don't see how Windows can ever win this argument, except maybe with inexperienced or ignorant admins, or special windows-only software.
Biased? (Score:5, Insightful)
As someone said, "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence". In a lot of peoples' opinion, the claim that Windows is more secure than Linux is just that, an extraordinary claim.
How would the authors of their study reconcile it with something like this one [theregister.co.uk], which showed that a default installation of Windows got infected with a virus within 20 minutes?
Re:Hardly scientific isn't it? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Hardly scientific isn't it? (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure doesn't sound like it's aimed at IT admins. If your IT department doesn't have anyone who's competent to secure and maintain the system(s) you use, it's the fault of management, not the software (nor the admin).
Hey, my plywood outhouse is more secure than Fort Knox.. as long as the outhouse has a padlock and Fort Knox is unlocked and unoccupied. Putting one competent gaurd in front of the entrance to each highlights the real defendability of both.
A crayon is ready to use right out of the box - a pencil has to be sharpened. Strangely, we use more pencils than crayons in the workplace. Why? Because it's better. Someday, a PHB will touch the obelisk, and stand upright. Until then, we're stuck with cray^H^H^H^H windows.
Re:Hardly scientific isn't it? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Hardly scientific isn't it? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Hardly scientific isn't it? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:From the website of the sponsor (Score:5, Funny)
Whew. For a second there, I was worried I'd have to get out the mat.