Is Linux Really More Secure Than Windows?

[cloverm]

Ramen, Slapper, Scalper and Mighty may sound like Santa's new team of reindeer, but they are creatures far lower down the evolutionary ladder -- and much less welcome. These are worms that have infiltrated Linux servers in recent months, commandeering the servers for use in distributed denial-of-service attacks. Linux enthusiasts who once believed they were less vulnerable to attack than Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT) users have begun to wonder whether they were overly optimistic.

But it is a mistake to think that one operating environment is inherently more risky than another, according to Eric Hemmendinger, research director at Aberdeen Group. The number of security flaws in software, he said, depends largely on the software's age.

http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/19649.html

[flashingcurser]

With linux file permisions are not a second thought. You really need to be rooted to be harmed with linux. That alone should make linux more secure than most windows flavors. Even with win2k, most users out there are using it with no fire wall as administrator, or have given administrator rights to too many users. Only root has root privilage. Just my .02$

[coltrane]

I dont like this article, it seems to be misleading. You can compare software expliots to operating system exploits. Linux seperates the operating system and the application, while Windows integrates them.

[Coral_Sea]

Even Fort Knox is insecure if you leave the front door open. Linux lets you lock the doors and Winblows does too. It's just that Linux's locks are like those new electronic gizmos whereas Winders uses old, skeleton key style locks. Okay, bad analogy and not totally true.

I'd say no OS is secure if you're careless and assume nobody out there wants to be mischeivous, malicious, or both.