A question on protection software
froller at tnclimited.com
Wed Jun 10 21:27:12 UTC 2009
On Wed, 2009-06-10 at 22:03 +0100, Colin Law wrote:
> 2009/6/10 Tony Baldwin <photodharma at gmail.com>:
> > Sandy Harris wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 6:33 PM, <valhalla2100 at comcast.net> wrote:
> > ... clippage ...
> >> There's also an argument that Linux is better designed
> >> and better implemented than Windows, so more secure.
> >> I certainly believe that, but it would be fairly difficult to
> >> produce the evidence that would convince an MS
> >> employee.
> > Statistics alone should prove that point.
> The statistics don't prove it one way or the other because we don't
> know how much effort is put in attempting to attack linux machines.
> Windows machines are more commonly affected than Linux ones but this
> in itself does not say anything about the intrinsic security of the OS
> unless we know the relative amounts of effort put in by those with
> evil intent. Unless there are some other statistics available.
albeit from '04 but still applies.
"If we reality-check these conclusions against another scale, we find
that vulnerability metrics used by the US Computer Emergency Readiness
Team (CERT) return 250 results for Microsoft, with 39 having a severity
rating of 40 or greater, and 46 for Red Hat, with only three scoring
over 40. So simply making claims based on that one metric (as Steve
Ballmer did, again, earlier this week) is like judging a hospital's
effectiveness in dealing with emergency cardiac care from its average
speed in dealing with all patients."
The full 30 pg report is available for viewing. Granted nothing is 100%
so I train clients (windows or linux) in safe practices. If using your
computer is somewhat inconvenient then security is good. If there is a
high threat need, then isolate that activity. etc. etc.
"Life is like Linux, simple. If you are fighting it, you are doing
More information about the ubuntu-users