OS X and Linux are more vulnerable than Windows

X-Force tracks vulnerabilities by platform and has produced metrics this year to show the operating systems with the most disclosed vulnerabilities. The following chart shows the operating systems with the most vulnerabilities documented in 2008. The top ten operating systems account for nearly 75% of all vulnerability disclosures affecting operating systems.

News source: ibm.com

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

IBM working on 20 petaflops supercomputer

Next Story

Motorola: Windows Mobile 7 coming in 2010

29 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

LOL

Topic: "OS X and Linux are more vulnerable than Windows"
News item added in category: "Microsoft"

Preaching to the choir? ;)

Anyway, this article is about the number of published vulnerabilities. Not about how vulnerable the systems are (i.e. current number of outstanding unfixed vulnerabilities). ONCE AGAIN, an article on Neowin fails badly on this. And ONCE AGAIN I can only say "does fixing more vulnerabilities make an OS more vulnerable"? Of course not; in that case, a vendor could just abstain from fixing issues and look more secure.

This is measuring the wrong metrics. No wonder MS is looking surprisingly "secure".

1. that doesn't surprise me
2. uh, oh look IBM seems to be number 1. oh wait. Source=IBM duh!!! tainted
3. is anyone willing to go thru the trouble of writing code for a linux virus? I've heard it can be done, but bigger learning curve.
4. Obviously Apple's the worst. Some people don't like big monopolies so they go after them. That and those things are expensive. X_X My brother got a C grade OS 9 computer for about $60. with the notion that OS X would run on it so he bought a discounted education version for it. Hard drive lacked the firmware for it. Oh well. So upgrading Apple's would be a major pain. Even a clean install pain. making Vista and 7 look outstanding in that regard. :P

IBM having the most secure software isn't a surprise to me. Mega-corporations such as banks rely on stuff from IBM to handle financial information where vunerabilities are absolutely lethal.

Windows more secure than OSX? There is a shocker!! (input sarcasm here).

And yes, MS will have more holes in their software as compared to Apple since MS produces a hell of a lot more software than Apple. It would be better to compare the other software MS has to Adobe or some other company that produces a lot of software.

It also makes sense Windows is more secure since most people use Windows.

More secure, and this is with allowing every last piece of hardware to run the OS. Let's not forget the number of Windows users on top of that as well.

You'd think with all those people paying "top dollar" along with the fact that OS X is designed to be used on a specific set of hardware that it would have less issues.

dead.cell said,
More secure, and this is with allowing every last piece of hardware to run the OS. Let's not forget the number of Windows users on top of that as well.

You'd think with all those people paying "top dollar" along with the fact that OS X is designed to be used on a specific set of hardware that it would have less issues.

Less people use OSX that Windows. So you have less people using the software and reporting bugs. Thats part of the reason.

techbeck said,
It would be better to compare the other software MS has to Adobe or some other company that produces a lot of software.


Don't even talk about Adobe. Their programs are sooo vulnerable that its dangerous. At least that's what Kaspersky tells me. 56 vulnerabilities every scan and they are all Java/Adobe.

So based on this ALL OF MS SOFTWARE had only 3.16% of disclosed vulnerabilities (now thats a lot of software) where as Apple that make what could easily be seen as considerably less software was only 0.12% better then MS. That has to mean the average MS product had less vulnerabilities in 2008 then Appleware.
The OS numbers are even more damning against Apple. Thats a 28.6% total against MS which has 24.7%, so much for the joyus Apple security and consistant MS slating I see whenever a vulnerability appears here.

Remember the massive design flaw in Safari that allowed the browser to download, elevate, and execute code without the user's permission? Not only did Apple refuse to acknowledge the flaw and allowed it to become a zero-day exploit for MONTHS, but Microsoft was forced to issue a security bulletin to warn users about iTunes secretly installing the compromised Safari onto Windows machines.

Apple's only security is through obscurity, and somehow Steve Jobs spins this into making Mac users believe their O/S is protected by an 'Iron Curtain.' Steve Jobs could **** on a pregnancy test and sell it back to his customers; they would still buy it.

Kojio said,
Remember the massive design flaw in Safari that allowed the browser to download, elevate, and execute code without the user's permission? Not only did Apple refuse to acknowledge the flaw and allowed it to become a zero-day exploit for MONTHS, but Microsoft was forced to issue a security bulletin to warn users about iTunes secretly installing the compromised Safari onto Windows machines.

Apple's only security is through obscurity, and somehow Steve Jobs spins this into making Mac users believe their O/S is protected by an 'Iron Curtain.' Steve Jobs could **** on a pregnancy test and sell it back to his customers; they would still buy it.


+1

ZeroHour said,
So based on this ALL OF MS SOFTWARE had only 3.16% of disclosed vulnerabilities (now thats a lot of software) where as Apple that make what could easily be seen as considerably less software was only 0.12% better then MS. That has to mean the average MS product had less vulnerabilities in 2008 then Appleware.
The OS numbers are even more damning against Apple. Thats a 28.6% total against MS which has 24.7%, so much for the joyus Apple security and consistant MS slating I see whenever a vulnerability appears here.

Apple is only concerned at making things looking pretty and shiny. And I do agree that since they are only .12% better than MS in the software department, then they are in trouble.

stevehoot said,

+1

funny stuff..was this safari flaw the same one they finally fixed but then later had to go back and fix again because the fix did not fully patch the issue?

ummm can LTD reply to this please? or are you posted out?

Not flaming but this is a good point & I wouldn't have much to say to it.

(btw I'm not referencing the pregnancy test bit, but more:

Remember the massive design flaw in Safari that allowed the browser to download, elevate, and execute code without the user's permission? Not only did Apple refuse to acknowledge the flaw and allowed it to become a zero-day exploit for MONTHS, but Microsoft was forced to issue a security bulletin to warn users about iTunes secretly installing the compromised Safari onto Windows machines.

Apple's only security is through obscurity, and somehow Steve Jobs spins this into making Mac users believe their O/S is protected by an 'Iron Curtain.'


)

Thanks

This listing makes absolute sense: The vulnerability percentage *mostly* correlates to the market share of each product. Server platforms that haver a larger market share, are exposed to more attacks, and therefore have more hardened code. Since Windows server has such a large market share, and has been in the field for such a long time, it's three times more protected than the other products. I don't know the market share for the IBM servers, but they are most secure due to their restrictive design; the last IBM server I worked on (I-Series) could only be configured through a secured Telnet connection over an RJ45 phone line.