Windows v Linux security: the real facts

Advertisement (Why?)

Considering the publicity that has surrounded - and, despite super new security-focused Service Packs, continues to surround - Windows security issues, Microsoft's determination to demonstrate that Linux is less secure than Windows shows a certain chutzpah. The company has however had some support here; Forrester, for example, provides some numbers that can be used to support the contention that Microsoft flaws are less severe, less numerous and fixed faster. And although there's a general readiness among users to believe that Windows is a security disaster area, there's also a reasonable amount of support for the view that Linux would get just as many security issues if it had anything like Windows' user base.

News source: The Register

This beta project will run for 8 days. We must gather the majority of the data about your experiences with the new package installer within the next few days. Please help us by initiating beta testing as soon as possible. We need to identify any problems before incorporating it into live updates.

(1 reply) #1 zivan56 on 22 Oct 2004 - 20:07

They cant seem to tell the difference between Linux and a Distribution. Its like saying Joe's linux distro is less secure Windows. I dont mean the report, rather the Register. The report is sketchy to say the least, they claim it take Debian on average 56 takes to fix a hole, but they dont mention any particular example. I use debian on commercial server that I run and have never had any hole exploited on it. This probably means the are counting holes in program XYZ that comes with the distro.

Last edited by 1297 on 22 Oct 2004 - 20:14

#1.1 mr_da3m0n on 23 Oct 2004 - 18:32

Thank you, you are my personal hero for saying what I've been trying to say for the past three years. Linux is just a kernel.

The sad thing is, suppose Red hat comes bundled with an application KFart which basically does what the titles implies. You don't use it -- but there is a security hole in it. It gets counted as "Linux vulnerabilities" which annoys me. There is ALOT more software available for linux -- I mean, bundled with it. Four or Five CDs vs one. This comes into the factor as well... bleh.

(4 replies) #2 Lasker on 22 Oct 2004 - 20:09

fuc* linux, there's nothing more better than Windows

#2.1 eck0 on 22 Oct 2004 - 20:13

Sorry, but on behalf of the *nix users, You sir are an idiot.

#2.2 slapnuts_ox on 22 Oct 2004 - 20:22

agree with eck0

#2.3 tiagosilva29 on 22 Oct 2004 - 20:52

Go, you!

#2.4 Dale on 23 Oct 2004 - 16:02

although i am not a full linux user, i agree with all of you..

people seem to not like linux without a good reason

(1 reply) #3 daimon on 22 Oct 2004 - 20:18

This kinda makes sense because most MS vulnerabilities are fixed much before Linux problems. But still such a big kernel, windows would still be less secure, considering the potential vulnerabilities.

#3.1 slapnuts_ox on 22 Oct 2004 - 20:27

if you do read the article it says that the average time is faster for windows but the time taken for a critical security fix is much lower for linux than windows. I actually completly agree with this statement. Im not too concerned with a security flaw where someone requires to be in my house infront of my pc to do something but I am concerned about someone doing something over the internet.

#4 doodzzz on 22 Oct 2004 - 20:20

/me high fives eck0
Probably the neglection that is over comming Microsoft would be leading for the best :-D *hopes so*

(3 replies) #5 sullysnet on 22 Oct 2004 - 20:31

these things crack me up, Linux is great period !!!!! most that hate it don't know about it

#5.1 eck0 on 22 Oct 2004 - 20:44

I fully agree. most Windows users don't understand the full flexiblity and power of the nix distros, but let be and use Windows.. Hey we don't need more idiots on nix

#5.2 snake-eyes on 22 Oct 2004 - 22:25

Yeah...you've got more than enough already.

#5.3 rumc151 on 23 Oct 2004 - 23:17

I assume you're another Windows user?

The truth is that the average PC user can't handle a *nix operating system, and wont be able to until Linux evolves to be more user-friendly. Although saying that, a few months ago I installed SuSE 9.1 and the install was easier, faster and less troublesome than when I installed XP Home.

#6 cork1958 on 23 Oct 2004 - 00:34

As the article states though, if nix had the user base of windows................
Not defending Windows, but as everyone knows, it is full of holes even after the release of SP2. They'll be patching Windows and Linux distros forever. There are just to many people out there trying to break it/them. Plain and simple.

#7 BigBoy on 23 Oct 2004 - 01:55

"Windows v Linux security: the real facts"

Wait - the "real fact" and "the Register" in the same sentence?

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

If you want real facts, go to Secunia or something.

It's a bit pitifull how any "real facts" from Reg makes it to the main page over here IMHO.

#8 Darkinspiration on 23 Oct 2004 - 04:35

i dont know seem to me like the microsoft document was a bit flawed. They don't take into consideration the type of hole. Sure they rate security flaw but only by an indicator ( critical or not ) and in linux a critical hole in Mplayer when you dont have it installed is not really critical. but in windows a critical hole in IE will affect you regardeless if it's installed or not ( well it's microsoft fault taught you could fool us by hiding the bugger didn't you ...

)

(1 reply) #9 SniperX on 23 Oct 2004 - 07:07

Extremely well written, thought-provoking and very interesting read.

#9.1 SoNiCfReAk on 23 Oct 2004 - 15:25

M$ waits to fix problems, infact they have been known to not disclose problems and wait up to a year and half to fix known bugs. Almost everytime a hole in Linux is found it is fixed if possible. I've never seen a buffer overflow in Linux. I've never seen a BSoD, kernel panic, stack space problem, filesytem deteriation (why do we have to degrag all the time and reformat at least once a year on Windows?). I'm sorry but I don't believe it. Especially when the same people have stated that OSX is the most secure, MacOS X is OSS with iLife apps. BSD maybe designed to be more secure but there are more people to fix Linux problems than BSD problems.

NT is a joke when your talking security, maybe not compared to 9x but compared to BSD, Linux, and HURD. And yes it is a lot better with XP SP2, but they could go further. How about a two-way firewall? How about having stricter admin access or not letting people be logged in as an admin all the time?

Last edited by 62986 on 23 Oct 2004 - 18:30

#10 rezza on 24 Oct 2004 - 19:55

QUOTE

I've never seen a buffer overflow in Linux.

Really? There have been plenty. Even the famous sshnuke exploit used in the matrix trilogy is a buffer overflow-based exploit. There are lots of other examples.

Or did you mean just the linux kernel, and not the userspace apps? Because a lot of those buffer overflows are nothing to do with linux itself, but bad coding on the part of the application writers.

EDIT: quote is in reply to #9.1

Last edited by 20611 on 24 Oct 2004 - 20:19

#11 Divide Overflow on 25 Oct 2004 - 07:10

That kind of holier than thou arrogance is exactly why Linux is not the desktop operating system of the masses. Few *nix knockoff users think that other users are capable of learning to use a Unix type OS, let alone want to try. This attitude is one of the many things that has to change before Linux can replace Windows as the PC OS of choice. Take a look at Apple. BSD under a touchy feely GUI that is uniform and simple. Exactly what needs to be done to replace Windows.

NT is a joke when your talking security, maybe not compared to 9x but compared to BSD, Linux, and HURD. And yes it is a lot better with XP SP2, but they could go further. How about a two-way firewall? How about having stricter admin access or not letting people be logged in as an admin all the time?

That's funny. . if Microsoft had added a decent two way firewall, what would the world say? They'd pitch a fit, claiming that MS is trying to corner the software firewall market. So, MS added a firewall that wasn't as good as their competitors, to be what it is: better than nothing. Want a better firewall? Go download one.

Secondly, you are perfectly capable of running as Root in Linux, just as you are capable of running as an Administrator in Windows. Your box is only as secure as you make it.

Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!

Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.

Neowin.net