jlc Posted July 29, 2003 Report Share Posted July 29, 2003 http://www.kingcountyjournal.com/sited/sto...ory/html/138702 This is nice: * ``Good enough'' isn't secure. Despite its reputation for security, versions of Linux distributed by Red Hat Inc. of Raleigh, N.C., had 12 national security advisories issued in 2002. Windows had five. (So far in 2003, Microsoft has issued more than 30 security patches.) Steve Ballmer. How many of RH's were exploited as bad as security in Windows? This is a question, I'm not makeing fun of M$. I know the company I work for got nailed by every single virus that came out last year for windows, killing desktop's and servers. The Unix servers seemed to keep running though? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ezroller Posted July 29, 2003 Report Share Posted July 29, 2003 its simply that linux is not as much of a blatant target for malicious hackers. Thats my take anyways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
static Posted July 29, 2003 Report Share Posted July 29, 2003 That would probably be because no one has too many complaints about it - it isn't by any one evil company, and the time it would take to make an effective virus that could somehow get to root via your user would probably take 100x longer than a nice worm that disables many windows machines in seconds!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyme Posted July 29, 2003 Report Share Posted July 29, 2003 The question is, what do they mean by national security advisory? And I agree with ezroller. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gowator Posted July 29, 2003 Report Share Posted July 29, 2003 1) M$ is a bigger target Most of the worlds webservers run linux...thats a pretty big target. 2) RH isn't just an OS. So a RH security update is not the same thing as a Windows security update. Did ANY of these effect the kernel ?? or was it for instance an exploit in xpdf which could be used to create a buffer overflow. RH security patches cover almost everything you need on your system, from staroffice to VNC to ..... squid. Although its not fair either, becuase its out of M$'s hands... how many security updates were issued including all third party windows software. Incidently your seeing this post simply becuase M$Proxy server is a piece of S%$t security wise. Theoretically I don't have internet access from here !! Still we bought it just for that .... It wasn't even hard or challenging .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shen Posted July 29, 2003 Report Share Posted July 29, 2003 I know windows is prone to virus's,worms and various forms of attack but there are many steps that can be taken that can prevent many of these. Most virus's can be stopped by a simple plan of virus protection and detection. 2 yrs ago our company purchase a hardware fireward by cisco and we purchased a mcafee virus detection software we run on each server aswell as an Exchanged email plugin that scans every email that comes in and each workstion has virus detection software installed. We updated virus definitions onces a day on the servers and once a week on the workstations. In those 2 yrs I can count only 2 virus's that got in and they never really caused alot of dmg. The sql slammer that went around never affected us. It's my personal opinion many times when a company get's hit hard by a virus,worm or many other forms of attacks/hacks tends to fall in poor planning and front line protection. In this day and age no matter the OS you have to be very proactive when it comes to network security and where I work my job is on the line if any of our data was to get lost or stolen. After all it's my job to make sure within all possible means to do my best to secure our network and the data. Granted you can't always prevent everything but many times people get hit when they could have easily prevented it with a good network security plan in place. Anyways just my opinions granted may differ on what others think..:) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
static Posted July 29, 2003 Report Share Posted July 29, 2003 Although its not fair either, becuase its out of M$'s hands... how many security updates were issued including all third party windows software? I totally agree with that point. The linux updates include xsane and xpdf, etc. The windows updates include *some, but not nearly as many software updates (as opposed to OS updates) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shen Posted July 29, 2003 Report Share Posted July 29, 2003 They really need to compare security updates with RH's core inhouse utils and the kernel patches not all the 3rd party software that comes with it.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
static Posted July 29, 2003 Report Share Posted July 29, 2003 Yeah; but as if they want to look like idgits! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ixthusdan Posted July 29, 2003 Report Share Posted July 29, 2003 The virus and security issues with ms vs linux are simple. In order for windex to install software, find hardware, and fix itself automagically, it has to run insecure! In a different thread, it was mentioned that windex is great because it does all of this. But that is not "greatness", that is the problem! Windex knows this, and has opted to make the market more secretive in order to "fix" the problem. I prefer to know more about my computer, and forget the secret garbage. Fact is, the virus crafters and script kiddies are actually unwittingly driving the secrecy campaign for ms. :roll: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JaseP Posted July 29, 2003 Report Share Posted July 29, 2003 There are a couple of other issues here as well,... >> Windoze security advisories are issued generally when there is a breach of security. Linux security advisories are generally issued when a developer discovers a potential loophole. >> The article cites the TCO arguments that Steve Ballmer made. Too bad those "independant" research firms were on M$'s dole... Some of which I am sure do not take into acount those small firms that could do without an IT department if they ran a server that didn't crash twice a week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
static Posted July 29, 2003 Report Share Posted July 29, 2003 Yeah - but thanks to M$'s dollar they don't have to pay as much for the server OS! :roll: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.