Security Report: Windows vs Linux

[cloverm]

Here is to proof to what we've already known:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/securit...dows_vs_linux/

Executive Summary

Much ado has been made about whether or not Linux is truly more secure than Windows. We compared Windows vs. Linux by examining the following metrics in the 40 most recent patches/vulnerabilities listed for Microsoft Windows Server 2003 vs. Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS v.3:

1. The severity of security vulnerabilities, derived from the following metrics: 1. damage potential (how much damage is possible?) 2. exploitation potential (how easy is it to exploit?) 3. exposure potential (what kind of access is necessary to exploit the vulnerability?) 2. The number of critically severe vulnerabilities

The results were not unexpected. Even by Microsoft’s subjective and flawed standards, fully 38% of the most recent patches address flaws that Microsoft ranks as Critical. Only 10% of Red Hat’s patches and alerts address flaws of Critical severity. These results are easily demonstrated to be generous to Microsoft and arguably harsh with Red Hat, since the above results are based on Microsoft’s ratings rather than our more stringent application of the security metrics. If we were to apply our own metrics, it would increase the number of Critical flaws in Windows Server 2003 to 50%.

We queried the United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team (CERT) database, and the CERT data confirms our conclusions by a more dramatic margin. When we queried the database to present results in order of severity from most critical to least critical, 39 of the first 40 entries in the CERT database for Windows are rated above the CERT threshold for a severe alert. Only three of the first 40 entries were above the threshold when we queried the database about Red Hat. When we queried the CERT database about Linux, only 6 of the first 40 entries were above the threshold.

(It's a very long article, but might be worth reading.)

[coltrane]

I see Im not the only one at the REGISTER this morning

[wombleme]

38%.... thats alot..

[huntz]

Well everyone says Windows suck with security, and I believe thats because of its basic design principles weren't bulit inhierlty for security, it was bulit for ease of use, and a less steep learning curve. Even for Microsoft server level products it was the same.


Even though Windows NT code is by far suprioer then 9x mixed 16/32 bit garbage, the design goals were stressed ease of use, and a somewhat formual windows concepts. Though Microsoft has taken considerable efforts to remedy the security issue. They are doing it the wrong way, they need to adjust their design objectives and goals to allow a more realstic operating envoriment

Where Security, ease of use, dont have to confict usually, but then again there is a issue of stability. However Microsoft has improved on that 10 fold to where it was previous, I dont think Microsoft software products were designed for world condtions as opposed to Microsofts "ideal" condtions.


Anyway it wasnt suprizing that the report has signified security flaws that are prevalent in Windows.