Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Security Software Microsoft Linux IT

Linux and Windows Security Neck and Neck 512

Posted by Zonk from the no-losers dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Linux and Windows Security Neck and Neck More

Linux and Windows Security Neck and Neck

Comments Filter:

  • haha (Score:4, Funny)

    by macaulay805 ( 823467 ) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @12:56PM (#13064262) Homepage Journal
    "Nothing to see here ... move along"

    Now THATS security for you!

    • Re:haha (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Shads ( 4567 )
      Hehe, sad but true ;)

      I think the understated thing here is the severity of the typical break in though.

      In windows most users install and run as administrator, they can do pretty much anything. Thus even small application security holes result in someone being able to completely obliterate the machine.

      In unix most people install as root and run as an individual user. Thus most security holes unix has are relatively minor at worst executing the resultant code as the user who it is currently running as...
  • It's no longer better, it's now just as good.

    Funny, last month people told me it was better. The only quote in the article talks about linux' advantages. Erm. Something's missing.

    • In related news... (Score:4, Funny)

      by xstonedogx ( 814876 ) <xstonedogx@gmail.com> on Thursday July 14, 2005 @01:01PM (#13064324)
      Natlie Portman and Kathy Bates neck and neck when it comes to hotness.

    • Re:Advancements in FUD everywhere (Score:5, Insightful)

      by team99parody ( 880782 ) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @01:02PM (#13064333) Homepage
      It's funny how people think. Since neither product is 100% secure, they both think they're equally insecure. This logic is as stupid as saying "reading slashdot is just as dangerous as motorcycle racing, because I could get hit by meteor and die either way". Clearly one of the products has more serious exploits than the other and has caused more loss to businesses, but some people just don't want to admint that.

      But I agree with the parent -- advanced psychology-based FUD is a growing science.

      • But I agree with the parent -- advanced psychology-based FUD is a growing science.

        Kinda like scientology? All the "cool" people are doing it!

    • Like most "debates", those who best frame the discussion for their own purposes will "seem" to be winning.

      Realisticly, it's not just the number of vulnerablities that an operating system or program has, but also how the creator deals with them. There will always be bugs, and we should thus judge software creators not only by how few bugs they have, but also by how quickly they respond to bugs.

      ttyl
      Farrell

  • I concur (Score:4, Funny)

    by savagedome ( 742194 ) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @12:58PM (#13064288)
    The Pinto dealer down the block said that they have added a couple of air bags on the passenger side doors to get it at par with a Volvo. Coincidence?

  • I think linux actually has an edge... (Score:5, Informative)

    by yagu ( 721525 ) * <yayagu@[ ]il.com ['gma' in gap]> on Thursday July 14, 2005 @12:59PM (#13064292) Journal

    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.

    • Re:I think linux actually has an edge... (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      1) Non-administrator OS X users have access that's much closer to typical Unix root than to a typical Unix user. It's a moot point because...

      2) The obession with the omnipotence of root comes from the days when all Unix use was multi-user. On a typical Linux desktop, the access a user already has is far more dangerous than anything he could do under root.

      3) Please stop saying "boxen".
      • 1) Non-administrator OS X users have access that's much closer to typical Unix root than to a typical Unix user.
        Yes, in MacOS X (which I doesn't have but use in several clients and friends computers) an user can't do a security update but they can erase a partition. Wow, now THAT's security! :-P

    • Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @01:15PM (#13064501)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re:I think linux actually has an edge... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by ILikeRed ( 141848 ) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @01:39PM (#13064809) Journal
        Actual informed users can run administrator accounts on Windows with no problems whatsoever
        I will believe it when Linus starts telling people to run Windows firewalls on the perimeter of their network to protect their Linux boxes - in contrast to how Ballmer tells people to "secure their perimeter" [crn.com] with something other than Windows. (I guess he'd get in trouble if he just came out and said Linux)

      • Re:I think linux actually has an edge... (Score:5, Informative)

        by naelurec ( 552384 ) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @03:00PM (#13065827) Homepage
        And this points at where the problem lies - the users. They're generally lazy and uninformed.

        While this might be true .. its not the entire story. The entire story is simple -- there is still a LOT of software out there that simply DOES NOT RUN 100% CORRECTLY OUT OF THE BOX in anything BESIDES an administrative level account.

        Even things that SHIP WITH WINDOWS are prone to oversight which tells me one thing (and has been second'ed but not necessarily confirmed on /.) -- Microsoft doesn't believe in restricted access in its development model (read: Microsoft employees all have administrative level access).

        So is it any wonder that people DON'T do this? Its one thing to have a slight PITA factor when installing apps (as you can't simply say "hey here is my administrative level password .. install away!") but when you install apps and they may or may not work .. or might load but not work fully (ie write to a restricted part of the registry or file system without checking for success and not providing good error messages on what went wrong).

        From my professional experience setting up a "secure" windows environment -- there is a LOT of use of filemon, regmon and other tools to basically guess as to why apps fail and make the environment slightly more insecure so these apps can run (ie provide user write permissions to system registry nodes or certain file system areas)... even then, my success is quite low given the extremely LARGE amount of data that is spewed from these apps (not to mention certain apps that cause the said apps to close so they can't capture the data (piracy checking??))

        anyways.. its not even close to a reality. The mindset of programmers, developers, managers and microsoft is still NOT high on restricted user rights security and it is VERY apparent.

        Is it better? sure.. but its still not even CLOSE to being as good as on the *nix side even AFTER well over a decade since NT debuted.. fun.

    • Re:I think linux actually has an edge... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by cayenne8 ( 626475 ) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @01:20PM (#13064553) Homepage Journal
      "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."

      Well, I run into the non-admin option problem on Win boxes...as an Oracle DBA. Our SA's on the Sun boxes can easily create accounts for us with all the privs we need to install software, and admin. things on the box...they can let us sudo control things like Apache webservers (with Oracle iAS products..yup, gotta play with webservers too)...

      However, on windows...well, latest restrictions can't allow them to give us local admin on the boxes...and apparently windows cannot be tuned in a granularly sufficient manner to give us what we need to do on the box. We have to now get an SA to log us in, and baby sit us while we do something as simple as a quarterly Oracle security update patch. A waste of money and time. Why can't MS get the security level thing right?

      Trust me...as the project managers see what a PITA this is becoming and what a waste of time and $$'s...they are now listening to us, and we will NOT be getting any more Win. boxen to run server applications on. Is a pain to live with now, but, at least it has finally give the PHB's a reason to listen to us about staying with Unix, and trying Linux.

    • The best edge I can see for Linux is SELinux and better support for it. Role based access and strong policy can make a real difference in security - it's the next layer on from the multiuser privilege separation that exists now (and is insufficient).

      As other people have pointed out in replies, a non-root user can still hose the part of their system that counts: all their data. But let's imagine a nice future with SELinux or equivalent systems in place, good base policies, and good tools for maintaining t
    • I agree with you but I would add one point:

      What was compared?

      Linux servers vs. Windows servers - this is an issue here because Linux has some security problems (not that Windows hasn't) - there had been lot of holes in kernel (Linux) recently. But I don't really recall any mass histeria with Linux servers getting infected and DDoS entire country (Korea that was?) from Internet. There are some holes in f.e. Apache (but as I recall not serious ones - like exploitable in specific configurations - far more fr

  • It's all IE's fault (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DarkHand ( 608301 ) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @01:00PM (#13064303)
    Security in Windows itself had definately improved over the last few years. But almost all of the current and recent vulnerabilities have somehow been related to IE.

    Not using IE and using Firefox instead almost completely secures an up-to-date Windows box. Get rid of IE, get rid of 90% of Windows' security problems.
    • But almost all of the current and recent vulnerabilities have somehow been related to IE.

      Untrue. Other common vectors are:

      1. Documents with embedded Macro viruses.

      2. False email attachments

      3. RPC Vulnerabilities

      4. Buffer overflows on network services (e.g. IIS)
      • Not using IE for browsing has solved my spyware problem pretty much and since that's the major headache for most Windows users I'd always advise people to use Firefox instead of IE.
        • I agree completely. However, the issues like RPC and IIS viruses are ones that a Windows user has no direct defense against. All he can do is *try* to keep up with the next megaglob of security updates. Many users, however, get annoyed by these updates because they happen so often. And every time the updates are installed, the machine *must* be rebooted. (I've lost major time because Windows XP decided that it MUST auto-reboot whether I like it or not. God forbid that anyone keep notes on their screen, comp

      • Re:It's all IE's fault (Score:5, Informative)

        by zerocool^ ( 112121 ) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @01:23PM (#13064603) Homepage Journal
        You must really not be in the trenches much. You are way off base. I would say more than 90% of the stuff that I see is from IE problems.

        1. Documents with embedded Macro viruses.

        Haven't seen one of these in *years*. All office versions since 2000 have made major steps to reduce malicious code in documents, and they were few and far between in the first place.

        2. False email attachments

        There's been a huge upsurge lately in server side virus scanning for email, and you just don't see a lot of spyware in email.

        3. RPC Vulnerabilities

        Not really since windows 2000.

        4. Buffer overflows on network services (e.g. IIS)

        How many XP machines do you see with IIS?

        Honestly, though there may be a higher percentage of vulnerabilities in other products, the VAST majority of actual infections happen b/c of IE. No IE, no spyware.

        The number 2 cause of infections on end user machines I would say is the "Click here to download and install the RAD SCREENSAVER OF THE MONTH" bug, or the "Click here to get (spyware supported) WEATHER REPORTS, FREE FREE FREE ON YOUR TASKBAR" bug.

        • Haven't seen one of these in *years*. All office versions since 2000 have made major steps to reduce malicious code in documents, and they were few and far between in the first place.

          They were anything *but* few and far between. Back when I worked at a help desk, we had an Excel virus that had been prevalent in the company for YEARS. Every so often someone would give us a call and say that all the info had been wiped from their Excel spreadsheet. And that's despite the fact that Norton Anti-Virus was bloc
    • But almost all of the current and recent vulnerabilities have somehow been related to IE.

      Which, Microsoft insists, is an integral and inseparable part of the OS.

      Microsoft can't say on the one hand that IE is part of Windows, and then on the other hand claim that IE vulnerabilities don't count as Windows vulnerabilities.

  • Maybe for servers... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by generalpf ( 127112 ) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @01:00PM (#13064309)
    Maybe for servers, but not home users. When was the last time you saw a home Linux machine 0wn3d?

    (Granted, most people who use Linux at home are knowledgeable enough to keep even a Windows machine safe.)

  • More users != more secure (Score:3, Insightful)

    by de Bois-Guilbert ( 807304 ) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @01:01PM (#13064322)
    "the increasing number of Linux enthusiasts coming into the market would help the open source alternative in the long run."

    I'd say this is precisely the other way around. More users equals bigger target and more potential fuck-ups.
    • You forgot about the bazaar model.

      Here, more users = more developers = larger bazaar = more people working on security = better security

      • Re:More users != more secure (Score:5, Insightful)

        by CyricZ ( 887944 ) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @01:35PM (#13064768)
        The bazaar model fails to take into account the talents of the bazaarers. In practice what happens is that the numer of developers does increase, but the overall talent of those developers decreases. So while more code is output, it is not necessarily quality code. And secure code is often high quality code.

        Better security comes from better coding practices, the use of languages that are not as vulnerable to exploits, and the use of technology to avoid such exploits.

        Now, the fact still remains that such a model fairs far better than that used by Microsoft, for various reasons. But your model of the bazaar is too simplified. It fails to take into account some very important factors, like code and coder quality.
      • " You forgot about the bazaar model.

        Here, more users = more developers = larger bazaar = more people working on security = better security"

        You forgot that more users -> more hackers trying to circumvent security. And they will succeed.

    • Logical Fallacy (Score:3, Insightful)

      by kmmatthews ( 779425 ) *
      The argument that a larger target leads to a more vulernable system is flawed. Apache has > 60% marketshare, yet IIS has more vulernabilities.

      The whole "windows gets infected more because more people are targeting it" argument doesn't hold up - otherwise, apache would have more security problems than IIS.

  • LUA (Score:2, Informative)

    by xfmr_expert ( 853170 )
    May or may not be true, but if it would nice if I could run as LUA under Windows without having to jump through a bunch of hoops. I'm not talking about 3rd party apps, I'm talking about explorer.exe. There are a lot of little quirks and workarounds you have to deal with, although it's not impossible. It's clear that even XP was not designed with this in mind. Longhorn should do a better job of it. How good remains to be seen. That said, as an semi-experience Linux user, I still have no idea if I am re
    • I'm not talking about 3rd party apps, I'm talking about explorer.exe. There are a lot of little quirks and workarounds you have to deal with, although it's not impossible.

      For example ?

      /Running as a regular user for nearly 10 years...

  • Independent Funding? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Trippee ( 799704 )
    When are we going to see an independently funded research studies that will, without bias, give us realistic statistics that will benefit intelligent buying decisions for the general public when debating over classic "windows v linux" implementation?

  • Why can't they figure this out.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by QuantumRiff ( 120817 ) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @01:04PM (#13064345)
    They are taking security vuln's for redhat EL 3, or suse 9.1, and comparing them to MS Windows. That is not fair. Now if they compared them to Windows, Office, sharepoint, IIS, Office, Project, all Microsoft games, SQL server, etc.. then it would probably be a little more fair. Linux DISTRIBUTIONS are a little more than an OPERATING SYSTEM.

  • Absolutely zero-calorie article... (Score:4, Informative)

    by kclittle ( 625128 ) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @01:06PM (#13064380)
    No meaningful data to be found! Some wanna-be techno-journalist getting some middle-level sys admin to talk about his "hunches".

    yawn...

  • Just as safe? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Aqua OS X ( 458522 ) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @01:06PM (#13064385)
    Sex with someone with horable burning VD is just as safe as sex with someone ho doesn't have VD... as long as you apply a symantec branded condom and use critical update cream liberally.
  • Look out! All the slashdotter will have a heart attack reading this one, and miss the point which was : (fromt he article)
    "My hunch would be that Linux still has the edge but it's difficult to tell with all this misleading information being pumped out."

    FUD is FUD, and its being given by both side. It happenned in the C64 vs Mac, Mac vs PC, Nintendo VS Sega, XBOX vs PS2 wars, and will continue to happen in everything where nerds is involved.

    Those wars are Nerd's answer to woman staffed clothes store.

  • MIT & CMU can do a reliable study. (Score:5, Funny)

    by reporter ( 666905 ) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @01:07PM (#13064391) Homepage
    That "'misleading figures and surveys are muddying the waters''" is easily explained by a recent SlashDot article: "Study Shows One Third of All Studies Are Nonsense [slashdot.org]". We need an unbiased but authoritative organization to do a reliable study of Linux versus Windows. The best choice is probably the computer department at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) or Carnegie-Mellon University (CMU).

    They have a herd of poorly paid but diligent slaves (a.k.a. graduate students studying for a Ph.D.). They do excellent work in voluminous quantities and would surely produce an accurate analysis of Linux versus Windows.

    • We need an unbiased but authoritative organization to do a reliable study of Linux versus Windows. The best choice is probably the computer department at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) or Carnegie-Mellon University (CMU).

      Don't forget the guys over at UCal Berk--oh, wait.

  • 12 Min (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Chaotic Spyder ( 896445 )
    Dident i read about windows and 12min of safe time before trouble hits.. Beyond that.. I could have sworn the problem with widows becomming a secure OS was the fact that it was not Open.. thus nobody can tell if it is secure or not. correct me if i'm wrong but the advantage to open source is the barrage of people out there who can see errors and report and patch... windows is more of a trial and error process for secuirty... which by definition is just not secure...

    • Re:12 Min (Score:2, Informative)

      by stedo ( 855834 )
      The Honeynet Project did a study. They left an unpatched linux box connected to the internet (It was Red Hat 7.2) and waited until it was rooted. The Red Hat box survived for about three months. Then they did the same experiment with a Windows XP box.

      It lasted about four seconds.

  • Neck and neck? Pffft. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hoka ( 880785 ) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @01:09PM (#13064419)
    Where are the proactive security systems for Windows? Sure, Windows by default has a fairly rigorous ACL system by default (at least in comparison to classical Linux ACL's), but trying to measure the security of a system solely on how many exploitable bugs it has is just a poor measurement method. With projects like SELinux, GRSecurity, Pax, different implementations of active bounds checkers as well as stack smashers, and good implementations like Hardened Gentoo (Debian has a hardened project but I havn't tried it) I don't particularly see how Windows has a chance in hell.

    I don't know of any person with a Windows box who will hand out an admin account, but there are Gentoo Hardened devs who hand out root on their SELinux test rigs. Why? Because the system is secure enough to hand out root.
    • If you want security forget Microsoft or Linux. Get yourself some OS X or BSD.

      Now, go ahead and mod me down.

      • Re:Neck and neck? Pffft. (Score:3, Interesting)

        by hoka ( 880785 )
        If I had mod points I wouldn't. BSD has excellent security from what I've seen (I havn't had time to experiment enough with it yet so this is opinion) primarily because they have such high standards for code quality. When I was looking up comparisons before of Linux vs BSD, it seems like BSD takes a lot of proactive measures from the get-go, but not as much as something like SELinux. From what I've read in fact BSD has borrowed from SELinux because face it: Good security is good security. If somebody else h

  • Clicky for printer-friendly version. [vnunet.com] It will probably try to print the page as well.

    PS The 'perma-link' option does not appear to work yet.
  • ...Microsoft had made real progress on security in the past two years..."

    Yeah, thats real believable considering Microsoft is holding hands with Claria... [slashdot.org]


    --
    Check out the Uncyclopedia.org [uncyclopedia.org]:
    The only wiki source for politically incorrect non-information about things like Kitten Huffing [uncyclopedia.org] and Pong! the Movie [uncyclopedia.org]!

  • Studies schmudies (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Lost+Found ( 844289 ) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @01:11PM (#13064444)
    I hate these studies. Saying Linux isn't secure is like saying that fruit isn't red... it depends on what you're looking at. Are we talking about kernels? GNU tools? Common server software?

    More importantly, which distribution? Windows comes with f*cking notepad and Solitaire. Linux distributions typically come with an order of magnitude more applications.

    I'm on the Gentoo Security Mailing List. I get a few messages each day about vulnerabilities in software. Is each of these a ding on Linux? No, certainly not... it's a piece of software that happens to be available via portage.

    If they want to be fair, then every ding on every Windows application counts against Windows.

    More importantly, why the hell does every one of these boneheaded articles make it on the front page of Slashdot? Just helps spread the FUD.

  • For the server or for the desktop? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jschottm ( 317343 ) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @01:14PM (#13064483)
    The figures mentioneed by the hosting company seem to indicate that the discussion is focused on Windows security on the server side, where it is fairly true that Windows can be about as secure as Linux when both are competently managed. In both cases, there will be someone who knows about the systems taking care of them and ensuring that they're properly patched, firewalled, etc. I personally find managing Linux boxes easier, but Windows can be kept secure as a server.

    Where Windows still falls down security-wise is on the desktop, where the combination of a vulnerable browser/Office Suite along with the fact that the de facto standard way for desktop users to set up their accounts is with administrator priviledges. That turns what would be a non-existant threat on the server (you shouldn't be doing general surfing or office work on a server) into a major issue. Microsoft has made feeble attempts to encourage users and developers to use limited accounts, but the fact remains that reconfiguring poorly written software to work in a limited account is a major headache that the average desktop user is not willing to put up with.

    Microsoft also falls behind [most] Linux systems in that the majority of the software on a Linux box can typically be updated from a single tool (apt-get, yast, urpmi et al) while Windows Update only covers the core OS. Microsoft does have a better system in the works, but that will still only cover MS software.

  • Neck and Neck? Who's neck? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Efialtis ( 777851 ) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @01:19PM (#13064541) Homepage
    If you spend any time at Secunia, you will find all of the leading Operating Systems listed.
    One of the things you will notice, is that not all Operating Systems are created equally.
    Windows XP is here
    http://secunia.com/product/22/ [secunia.com]
    and Redhat 9 is here
    http://secunia.com/product/1343/ [secunia.com]
    With the biggest difference being in HOW CRITICAL THE SECURITY DEFECTS ARE and HOW MANY ARE STILL UNPATCHED
    Funny, that...
    Windows and Linux neck and neck? Not according to these numbers.
    • There is something I don't get in those graphs. Take look at them - Windows XP's last hole is dated on 2005-07-14, Red Hat's last hole is dated on 2004-05-03 - there *were* lot of holes in software that Red Hat was shipping after that date... I don't want to bother to check but the last security advisory for Red Hat is not ovelaping with end of line for RHL9? I mean those graphs are irrevelant since they measure different time peroids (Windows XP is longer than RHL9). I am all about Linux but this comparsio
  • I use Linux on a daily basis for Desktop and server use, and since i'm not a security expert.. I often wonder how the entire process of awareness of exploits and the patching of packages happen. Could someone explain this to me?

    Who is the trusted authority?

    I'm not the type of guy to bash Microsoft, but I must say I was quite surprised when spyware of some sort infected IE on a fresh and updated install of WinXP. www.google.com was redirected to another site offering spyware removal (What a joke)
  • http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/1 3/2255243 [slashdot.org]

    Studies show that there is a one in three chance this is BS, and a 100% chance we'll see this artical written over and over again in the favor of one or the other. The difference is, the Microsoft are usually the only ones to write articals in which they look better than linux. Perhaps things really are changing.

  • When and if... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by VectorSC ( 721025 )
    I'll start paying attention to the Linux vs. Windows security debate the next time I get a virus on my Linux box. Nuff said.
  • Let me just preface this by saying that I generally take articles by research firms with a healthy grain of salt. With that said, I wouldn't be surprised if the report is correct. Mod me down if you like but a properly administered Windows box can be as secure as Linux. I think too often we simply rely on the vendor and distributor to come out with a secure product and then never worry about it once its installed. A key factor in security is the administrator who must maintain these boxes. An out-dated
  • Ovum has also said: "Microsoft's .NET technology is at least six months ahead of its rivals" ... "It's more complete, more ready and more widely deployed than any of its web services framework competitors". http://www.aspstreet.com/pr/a.taf/idpr,61991 [aspstreet.com]

    And: "The Common Object Request Broker Architecture (CORBA) is a "doomed" technology that has no hope of matching Microsoft Corp.'s Distributed Common Object Model (DCOM), according to a new report on middleware. "http://www.computerworld.com/news/1997/story/ [computerworld.com]

  • Win Real Time! (Score:3, Funny)

    by delire ( 809063 ) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @01:32PM (#13064730)

    It's just like a treasure hunt, except you win back the time it would take you to read the article.

    The winner is the first to find the word in the following URL that suggests the value of the article it links to:

    http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2139790/surveys- useless-security

  • Give me a break! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by NotFamous ( 827147 ) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @01:34PM (#13064761) Homepage Journal
    I have been running a mixture of Windows and Linux boxes at home for more than 10 years. I am conscientious about anti-virus and anti-spyware on the Window's boxes. On the Linux (and an occasional BSD) boxen I just take the normal security of the distro install and update packages regularly. I also, of course, do not log in as root. The bottom line is over the years I have had to battle various vermin on the Windows boxes. I have yet to have a virus or anything like it on the Linux/BSD machines. EVER! I use Linux as my normal OS on my laptop. I am surfing everywhere, constantly checking email. I download lots of programs, install things, etc. NEVER a virus, etc. Give me a break!

  • Pure FUD (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Mr Europe ( 657225 ) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @01:46PM (#13064903)
    or mostly BS.
    1. Compare WinXP operation system to the whole distribution is stupid.

    2. Where from the heck those viruses spread ?

    3. Look the secunia lists (www.secunia.com)
    WinXP Pro (only OS):
    Unpatched 21 of 84 total
    Etremely or Highly Critical 30 of 84 total
    Remotely exploited 52 of 84 total
    Debian Sarge (OS and many, MANY, applications!):
    Unpatched 10 of 26 total
    Etremely or Highly Critical 4 of 26 total
    Remotely exploited 18 of 26 total

  • What if.... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by orion41us ( 707362 ) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @01:59PM (#13065103)
    Just thinking, is it really that the Linux OS is more secure or is it that the % of knowledgeable users using windows is lower the % of knowledgeable users using Linux?

    IMO Most of "Windows" issues are users: downloading this screen saver, installing that searchbar - running that "Funny" email attachment - Linux users tend to not do stupid stuff like clicking on the "Click here to scan your system!" links....

    Bottom line - windows is for the Masses - MS tries to make it user friendly and idiot proof, but I guess they keep coming up with better idiots.

  • Not news, just waffling... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by OwlWhacker ( 758974 ) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @01:59PM (#13065114) Journal
    The article reads like this:

    Well, I think that Windows security has improved.

    There are so many opionions out there, that it's hard to tell what the truth is.

    I think that Linux still offers slightly more security.

    Microsoft's patches are better...

    I think.

    It sounds to me like somebody just expressing an opinion that they have. This really isn't news at all, and doesn't even offer any insightful information.

  • Linux and Windows Security Neck and Neck???? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by lcsjk ( 143581 ) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @02:06PM (#13065216)
    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.

    Am I missing something? I would not attempt to dispute what he says, but what criteria does he use for that statement? Number of crashes, Technician time to re-boot/reload after an incident. Number of Viruses that get through? How many times the box is hacked?

    For an article titled "Linux and Windows Security Neck and Neck", I expect to see more than just "servers....no difference..."

    Apparently I am not the only one that thinks security is not just the server level. Nearly all the (on topic) comments talk about win boxes that startup with admin priviledges. The real security problem seems to be at the user level, not the server level. A good admin (or group of admins for 13000 servers) can setup and take either box to maximum security. The home user, (not lazy, not ignorant as one post call them) is not an IT person. If the box comes with a setup that makes it less secure, that is probably the only thing that will ever get setup.

    My opinion is that security is not just MS or LINUX. It is based on the person that installs and sets up the OS. I would bet that any good admin can set-up and make either OS very secure or very in-secure. If a secure box is delivered to the home user, it will probably remain secure. Otherwise, it will probably end up helping send SPAM.

  • Rubbish (Score:3, Informative)

    by reclusivemonkey ( 703154 ) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @02:06PM (#13065224)
    Look at what's actually happening, from http://www.us-cert.gov/cas/bulletins/SB05-194.html #trends [us-cert.gov]; Top Ten Virus Threats All Win32 Worms. Pick any security site, and look at the top 10 threats. Then tell me which OS is the most secure. We can argue all day about the reasons, the facts speak for themselves.

    • Re:Rubbish (Score:3, Insightful)

      by soccerisgod ( 585710 )
      Let's be a little realistic here. I'm a Linux user and glad of it, but don't you think the main reason why there's so many worms for Windows and so few for Linux is that there are a hell of a lot more victims for Windows worms?

  • neck and neck? (Score:3, Funny)

    by wardk ( 3037 ) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @03:31PM (#13066161) Journal
    so was Linux standing on it's head when they lined them up to compare?

  • 2 "Experts", 10 paragraphs, 286 words, 0 CONTENT!! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by woobieman29 ( 593880 ) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @03:42PM (#13066246)
    So, what is the value of TFA?

    I read the entire article, and it appears to be 100% fluff. THere is not one statistic, or even any made up data that is used to support the premise of the article. To paraphrase, the two experts that were interviewed are essentially saying: "Well, I think that maybe just possibly Linux has a security edge, but Microsoft has probably done some catching up with all of the security stuff they've been talking about, so I think that realistically I don't have any idea at this point what is better".

    Wow. Thanks for that, guys.

  • Apples & Oranges (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Austin Milbarge ( 723855 ) on Thursday July 14, 2005 @04:36PM (#13066794)
    "Linux has a slight advantage in that computer science students are learning it, but Microsoft has made life easier for non-techies, particularly with its improved patches."

    This paragraph says it all.

    First off, a system is only going to be as secure as the person who's using the system knows how to secure it. I've seen tons of Linux and BSD boxes with services running for no reason. Just check out Redhat's default installation and you'll see ports open all over the place that are not being used. At least that the way Redhat did things.

    Secondly, Linux has 3 advantages over Windows.

    1. The obvious. Linux should be more secure because it's a much simpler system than Windows! I don't think anyone can deny that. Wouldn't make sence if Linux was less secure than Windows, especially since lots of it's functionality was taken from more time proven Unix systems.

    2. The people who use Linux are more likely to be experienced computers users than their Windows counterparts. Linux doesn't have to appeal to a bunch of mouse clickers who expect things to work all the time. Us geeks are willing to bend over backwards to make things work.

    3. Windows operates over 90% of the world's computers, so hackers and virus writers have a much bigger target. Besides, it wouldn't make much sense for anyone to write viagra adware for Linux when most of it's users aren't even getting laid!

Slashdot Top Deals

"Protozoa are small, and bacteria are small, but viruses are smaller than the both put together."

Close