RE: How Secure is Windows, Really?

Do you still know System i only shops, with thin clients? Not using

a

groupware? Not using internet access? Just 5250?

What does this have to do with the subject at hand?

Lot's. But see below.

A choice for what?  I am talking completely and solely about Windows

as a

server replacement for iSeries.  Whether or not you use Windows as a

client

Yet you mentioned an IE flaw as being one of the security problems
windows has. And when using Windows purely as a server, you won't really
need IE (except for some trusted websites, to download updates).

sold with SQL Server and open ODBC access, and almost always use IIS

as

their web server.  Those two things alone make the Windows server the

most

vulnerable server platform on the market.

As far as I know, IIS6 didn't have any real security problems - several
applications running on IIS/ASP.NET however did, but we're not blaming
IBM for every insecure Java/PHP Application out there either.

Same goes for SQL Server 2005 - which didn't have any big time issues
either. The times of Blaster are over. Microsoft learned from their
mistakes (however, they are still cleaning up the mess that the Single
User OS like DOS/pre NT Windows created).

And remember, that when blaster came out, the fix was already available
for several months before the virus broke out - that's just admins not
patching their systems.

You are absolutely and completely wrong.  The iSeries is better.

Hands

down, no argument.  i5/OS is a much more secure platform than Windows,
regardless of the edition.  This is the point I'm trying to make.

Generalizations are always wrong :)

The System i doesn't even offer a web browser.

So what?  How in the world is this even an argument?

How can you complain about something which the other System doesn't even
have? It's like complaining that the CD Player in Car A is prone to
breaking, while Car B doesn't even offer a CD Player.

I'm sorry Lukas, but your comparisons are simply baseless.  And it's

faulty

arguments like yours ("Windows isn't so bad" and "Windows server isn't

as

bad as Windows desktop") that are really VERY dangerous.  In fact, I

can't

think of anything more dangerous than saying Windows server is safe

because

it's not as bad as Windows desktop.

I just have the feeling that you're stuck with your impressions with
windows a few years ago. NT4 systems, Windows 2000, which had a sheer
unlimited supply of a variety of exploits. Microsoft has learned since
then, and is progressing into the right direction. A properly managed
windows network these days usually has little security problems.

And what you shouldn't forget - the System i isn't a really interesting
platform for security researchers, or black hats. There are not enough
people that use it, and not many of the systems are connected directly
to the internet. If there are issues, they may be undetected longer, or
even never detected.