f



[News] [Linux] Linux More Secure Than Mac OS X, Windows

How secure are Linux, Window and Mac OS?

,----[ Quote ]
| Overall it looks like the Linux kernel turns out to be the most
| secure system. Not only does it have virtually no security holes
| that lead to system access, it's also very resilient to remote
| attacks, two areas where both Windows and Mac OS X aren't doing
| very well.
`----

http://www.masuran.org/node/29

Lots of nice charts on the page. Good summary.


Related:

Linux hacks rare as hens' teeth, says survey

,----[ Quote ]
| Adding more fuel to the Linux versus Windows fire, a US research firm
| this week released a survey that noted only eight percent of Linux 
| developers had ever seen a virus infect their systems. 
| 
| [...]
| 
| A similar survey by Evans last year found that nearly 60 percent of
| non-Linux developers admitted they'd been victimised by security 
| breaches, and 32 percent had been hit three or more times.
|
| Does that mean Linux is a more secure OS? Nicholas Petreley, Evans Data's 
| Linux analyst, certainly thinks so.
|
| "It's not surprising that Linux systems aren't hacked to the degree that 
| Windows-based machines can be exploited," he said in a statement. "The 
| reasons for the greater inherent security of the Linux OS are simple, more 
| eyes on the code mean that less slips by and the OS is naturally going to 
| be better secured." 
`----

http://www.crn.com.au/story.aspx?CIID=15911


2006 Operating System Vulnerability Summary

,----[ Quote ]
| As far as "straight-out-of-box" conditions go, both Microsoft's
| Windows and Apple's OS X are ripe with remotely accessible
| vulnerabilities.
| 
| [...]
| 
| The UNIX and Linux variants present a much more robust
| exterior to the outside. Even when the pre-configured server
| binaries are enabled, each system generally maintained its
| integrity against remote attacks.
`----

http://www.omninerd.com/2007/03/26/articles/74


Linux vs. Windows: Which is Most Secure?

,----[ Quote ]
| True to UNIX.
| Qualitative score: Windows gets a D+ while Linux gets an A-.
| "Bummer of a birthmark"
| Qualitative score: Windows gets an F while Linux gets an A.
| User data confidentiality.
| Qualitative score: Windows gets a B- while Linux gets a B+.
| Patch practices
| Qualitative score: Windows gets an A- while Linux gets a B+.
`----

http://www.esecurityplanet.com/views/article.php/3665801


Linux Security: A Big Edge Over Windows

,----[ Quote ]
| Linux is better at locking down a computer than Windows. The Linux OS
| uses configuration settings and user permissions to a much more
| efficient degree than the Windows administrator account. To do
| this, non-enterprise users should seek help from third-party
| security suites that serve as configuration managers, James
| Bottomley, chief technology officer of SteelEye Technology said.
`----

http://www.linuxinsider.com/rsstory/54742.html


Security Report: Windows vs Linux

,----[Executive summary ]
| Finally, we also include a brief overview of relevant conceptual
| differences between Windows and Linux, to offer an insight into why
| Windows tends to be more vulnerable to attacks at both server and desktop,
| and why Linux is inherently more secure
`----

http://www.theregister.co.uk/security/security_report_windows_vs_linux/


Despite Vulnerabilities, Apple's Mac OS X Weathers The Security Storm

,----[ Quote ]
| I still think the Mac is safer than Windows. It has a reduced
| threat environment. 
| 
| [...]
| 
| Marius van Oers, a virus research engineer at McAfee, posted a blog last
| week that showed there are more than 236,000 pieces of malware "in the 
| wild." The vast majority are aimed at the Windows environment. Only about 
| 700 are meant for the various Unix/Linux distributions, van Oers wrote. How
| many are for the Mac OS X platform? Seven or less, he said, calling
| the threat "pretty much non-existent at the moment."
`----

http://news.yahoo.com/s/cmp/20070331/tc_cmp/198701479;_ylt=A9G_RwQ7URBGdGkAoQAjtBAF


The problems with Vista laid bare - What might have been

,----[ Quote ]
| ...the trick that XP misses is that you must compel all ordinary
| users to have restricted, non-admin accounts. You make it impossible
| - or at least really hard - for normal accounts to have super-user
| powers. Ordinary users can see their own files, but not each other's 
| or the protected ones of the OS itself, and they can't touch anything
| that might cause problems.
| 
| [...]
| 
| It's never going to happen now - it's too late for Vista, and after
| this, there will probably never be such a big change in Windows again,
| until it's replaced with something new.
| 
| But here's a fun thought. What if Microsoft were held legally
| responsible for all those vulnerable, insecure Windows
| installations out there? 
`----

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=38419


Why Windows is less secure than Linux

,----[ Quote ]
| Windows is inherently harder to secure than Linux. There I said
| it. The simple truth.
| 
| Many millions of words have been written and said on this topic.
| I have a couple of pictures.
`----

http://blogs.zdnet.com/threatchaos/?p=311


Linux more secure than Windows, national survey shows

,----[ Quote ]
| In its first annual Security Issues Survey for the debut of the Software 
| Security Summit conference in La Jolla, California, BZ Research polled 
| 6,344 software development managers about the security of different popular 
| enterprise operating environments and Linux and open source consistently 
| topped Microsoft Windows, according to respondents.
`----

http://www.xomba.com/linux_more_secure_than_windows_national_survey_shows


Microsoft Windows: Insecure by Design

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A34978-2003Aug23?language=printer


If Only We Knew Then What We Know Now About Windows XP

,----[ Quote ]
| You can think of Windows XP as a house with a second floor built of
| spackle, wood filler and duct tape.
`----

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/23/AR2006092300510.html?nav=rss_technology


Why Windows is a security nightmare.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/21/1085120110704.html


The Structural Failures of Windows

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=15305
0
newsgroups3 (79677)
5/10/2007 1:32:21 AM
comp.os.linux.advocacy 124139 articles. 3 followers. Post Follow

2 Replies
1537 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 55

[snips]

On Thu, 10 May 2007 02:32:21 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:

> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Overall it looks like the Linux kernel turns out to be the most
> | secure system. Not only does it have virtually no security holes
> | that lead to system access, it's also very resilient to remote
> | attacks, two areas where both Windows and Mac OS X aren't doing
> | very well.
> `----

> Linux hacks rare as hens' teeth, says survey

> | Does that mean Linux is a more secure OS? Nicholas Petreley, Evans
> Data's | Linux analyst, certainly thinks so. |

> ,----[ Quote ]
> | As far as "straight-out-of-box" conditions go, both Microsoft's |
> Windows and Apple's OS X are ripe with remotely accessible |
> vulnerabilities.

> | The UNIX and Linux variants present a much more robust | exterior to
> the outside. Even when the pre-configured server | binaries are enabled,
> each system generally maintained its | integrity against remote attacks.

And on and on and on.

This is the point the Wintrolls will never get (or do, but will never
admit): when we say Linux is more secure, we don't mean it is absolutely
secure against everything and has never had a bug or a compromise; we
mean, as is demonstrated again and again and again, that Linux's rate of
compromises remains far less than that of its competition, day in and day
out.

Nothing is perfect, but Linux is a lot closer, security-wise.  I'm sure
someone will try to argue the point, but let's face it, this battle is
over, and Linux won it a long time ago.
0
kbjarnason (4613)
5/11/2007 12:52:30 AM
On Thu, 10 May 2007 17:52:30 -0700, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> wrote:


>[snips]

>On Thu, 10 May 2007 02:32:21 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:

>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | Overall it looks like the Linux kernel turns out to be the most
>> | secure system. Not only does it have virtually no security holes
>> | that lead to system access, it's also very resilient to remote
>> | attacks, two areas where both Windows and Mac OS X aren't doing
>> | very well.
>> `----

>> Linux hacks rare as hens' teeth, says survey

>> | Does that mean Linux is a more secure OS? Nicholas Petreley, Evans
>> Data's | Linux analyst, certainly thinks so. |

>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | As far as "straight-out-of-box" conditions go, both Microsoft's |
>> Windows and Apple's OS X are ripe with remotely accessible |
>> vulnerabilities.

>> | The UNIX and Linux variants present a much more robust | exterior to
>> the outside. Even when the pre-configured server | binaries are enabled,
>> each system generally maintained its | integrity against remote attacks.

>And on and on and on.

>This is the point the Wintrolls will never get (or do, but will never
>admit): when we say Linux is more secure, we don't mean it is absolutely
>secure against everything and has never had a bug or a compromise; we
>mean, as is demonstrated again and again and again, that Linux's rate of
>compromises remains far less than that of its competition, day in and day
>out.

>Nothing is perfect, but Linux is a lot closer, security-wise.  I'm sure
>someone will try to argue the point, but let's face it, this battle is
>over, and Linux won it a long time ago.

Nobody is asking for absolute security, but windows isn't even within
ten orders of magnatude as secure as linux.  The default windows install
still allows any process to destroy the system with nearly no controls
whatsoever.  There's a reason no sane linux user does all work logged
in as root.  

If security was speed, windows would be complaining that linux can't
exceed the speed of light while they were poking along at 5 miles per hour.
0
aznomad.2 (622)
5/11/2007 1:04:57 AM
Reply: