Re: Which OS is more secure ?

["Adam Lang" <aalang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

These numbers are bogus and the site says so itself.

Linux gets bunched with the server apps (sendmail, pop, ftp, postfix,
apache, etc.) that people use it with, whereas NT is just tested agaisnt NT.
Hell, they even said they excluded IE security breaches!

So yes, Micriosoft Windows NT has fewer security breaches than ALL the Open
Source software out there.

They didn't even list which server apps they included in the Linux numbers.

Also of note is how fast a security flaw is fixed.  Quickly due to the open
source philosophy or after somwthing has been actively exploited, as in MS a
lot of the time.

Adam Lang
Systems Engineer
Rutgers Casualty Insurance Company
http://www.rutgersinsurance.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wills, Mike N. (TC)" <MNWills@taylorcorp.com>
To: <midrange-l@midrange.com>
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 1:20 PM
Subject: RE: Which OS is more secure ?


> I will take a neutral stand point here. I believe that both Windows and
> Linux are close to being the same for security (from the NT standpoint NOT
> 9x/ME), if you know how to do it. Bugs? As long as the programmers are
> human, there will be bugs. The Windows OS tends to get hacked more than
> Linux, but also how many of these hackings are by "script-kiddies" vs.
true
> hackers or crackers. Many times there already is a fix for the
vulnerability
> that the hacker found, it just wasn't applied by the admin (like CodeRed,
> Minda, etc.).
>
> Mike