[NEWS] MS Security Chief Says Windows is Safer Than Linux

Mr.Guvernment · Feb 12, 2005

Your thoughts? i mean is an O/S security based on the amount of patches that had to be released - is Linux no more a secure choice?

Personally to many ANY server O/S is secure - if the admin knows what they are doing.

+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| MS Security Chief Says Windows is Safer Than Linux |
| from the some-press-is-better-than-no-press dept. |
| posted by Zonk on Friday February 11, @10:53 (Microsoft) |
| http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/11/1413208 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+

Kip Winger writes "Mike Nash, Microsoft's Chief Security Executive, has [0]made claims that Windows is more secure than Linux. In a recent online chat, he staunchly defended Microsoft's record on security, basing part of his argument on how [1]Windows Server 2003's 15 patches in the past year are far less than what [2]RedHat or [3]SuSE have had to endure." He also mentioned the [4]recent purchase of Sybari and their Antivirus product.

Discuss this story at:
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=05/02/11/1413208

Links:
0. http://www.techweb.com/wire/security/60300209
1. http://secunia.com/product/1174/
2. http://secunia.com/product/2535/
3. http://secunia.com/product/4258/
4. http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/08/2149210&tid=109

Sentential · Feb 12, 2005

Hmmmm. Methinks this is damage control and justification for all the Win64 delays

Gnufsh · Feb 12, 2005

Yes, that makes sense. Windows is more secure because they patch more security holes.

Wait, could that be because they neglected security holes for so long that there are more holes to patch? Personally, if security was my primary concern, I'd take something like OpenBSD over Windows any day.

Mr.Guvernment · Feb 12, 2005

^^^ i think the 2nd one is more like it - they ignored it for so long.

Bios24 · Feb 12, 2005

I find this article partial irrelivant, I mean, what else would the Chief security guy of MS say? That they are second best? Or someone else's OS is better? Now if a respected and independent company did research and published the results, then I may have something to believe.

Slackfumasta · Feb 12, 2005

NEWS FLASH!

CEO of Coca-Cola says Coke is better than Pepsi!

Does anybody really consider this news? I'm a Microsoft fanboi, but I'm not about to accept the word of a MS security chief as gospel when it comes to comparing security.

That said, I think Win2k3 Server is a great OS.

Mr.Guvernment · Feb 13, 2005

^^^ for sure u are both right - if he said linux was better he would be looking for a job with me after billy fired him

and i will 2nd the win2k3 server.

tenchi86 · Feb 13, 2005

Not more secure but one main reason is because no one really takes time to try and hack linux. I give Ms for atleast updating windows, to keep up with all the new hacks that come out though I dont sya its more secure.

mbentley · Feb 14, 2005

one thing that i wonder about is since windows is run on like 9 out of 10 machines, if i was a virus maker who wanted to effect the most people, i am not going to make a linux specific virus. i would make a windows one because it would effect more people... i wonder if linux/windows was a 50/50 type thing if we would see more attacks on the linux operating systems... i imagine we would. maybe that is why windows seems to be swiss cheese when it comes to security. maybe there are just as many possible flaws in every OS except they are not tested as brutally as windows due to their lack of presence in the OS market...

telexen · Feb 14, 2005

tenchi86 said:
Not more secure but one main reason is because no one really takes time to try and hack linux. I give Ms for atleast updating windows, to keep up with all the new hacks that come out though I dont sya its more secure.

This kind of opinion is false. It is pure fact that Linux systems are more targetted.

mbentley · Feb 14, 2005

telexen said:
This kind of opinion is false. It is pure fact that Linux systems are more targetted.

how do you think linux systems are more targeted? maybe servers running a linux/unix variant...

...and an opinion can't be true or false

Mr.Guvernment · Feb 14, 2005

i would love to see the "facts" that linux system are more targeted then Windows based systems?

mbentley · Feb 14, 2005

Mr.Guvernment said:
i would love to see the "facts" that linux system are more targeted then Windows based systems?

exactly what i was thinking...

Gnufsh · Feb 15, 2005

You might find this Uni/Windows Security article interesting:
http://kernelthread.com/publications/security/uw.html

[NEWS] MS Security Chief Says Windows is Safer Than Linux

Mr.Guvernment

Member

Sentential

Contributing Member

Gnufsh

Senior Member

Mr.Guvernment

Member

Bios24

Member

Slackfumasta

Member

Mr.Guvernment

Member

tenchi86

Member

mbentley

Gloriously Lead, Overclockix Chief Architect

telexen

Member

mbentley

Gloriously Lead, Overclockix Chief Architect

Mr.Guvernment

Member

mbentley

Gloriously Lead, Overclockix Chief Architect

Gnufsh

Senior Member

Similar threads