Is Windows more secure than Linux?
Thread Starter
|
Still kicking!!
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 6,061
Likes: 6
From: Kalispell, Mt.
Is Windows more secure than Linux?
I report...you decide.... this ought to open a whole basket of worms.
Is Windows More Secure than Linux? We've all been hearing from open source aficionados for years that Linux is much more secure than Windows, but is it true? mi2g, a British security company, recently released a study that concludes Linux is successfully exploited more often than Windows. Read about it here:
http://www.winxpnews.com/rd/rd.cfm?id=041109TI-WinVsLinux
Is Windows More Secure than Linux? We've all been hearing from open source aficionados for years that Linux is much more secure than Windows, but is it true? mi2g, a British security company, recently released a study that concludes Linux is successfully exploited more often than Windows. Read about it here:
http://www.winxpnews.com/rd/rd.cfm?id=041109TI-WinVsLinux
Elder User
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 974
Likes: 1
From: Alhambra CA
First off the source must be considered. I'm only questioning the validity of the source. Most surveys can be biased. Everything on the internet should be taken with a grain of salt.
In a nut shell most Linux/Windows operating system can be vulnerable. On the flip side they can both be locked down fairly tightly as well. The deciding factor in security is who is configuring the software, it all comes down to the user.
just my two cents.
--Juan
In a nut shell most Linux/Windows operating system can be vulnerable. On the flip side they can both be locked down fairly tightly as well. The deciding factor in security is who is configuring the software, it all comes down to the user.
just my two cents.
--Juan
FTE Chapter Leader
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 42,612
Likes: 3,131
From: Fraziers Bottom, WV
What FN250 said and to add that most code writers won't spend time hacking a low use product. Linux has a good following buy not large enought to make it worth wild for a hacker and most places hackers want to hack (banks, corps and the likes) don't use it for secure data.
The open source idea makes it a little harder the hack because more people write good code and fix hole faster and sometimes better than large corps.
To that end it may be more secure for some users and application.
But if a hacker wants you he will get you!
The open source idea makes it a little harder the hack because more people write good code and fix hole faster and sometimes better than large corps.
To that end it may be more secure for some users and application.
But if a hacker wants you he will get you!
Lead Driver
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 6,340
Likes: 588
From: Amarillo, TEXAS!
Linux/UNIX systems are by far more secure than WinD'ohs. If you read the article, paying attention to the syntax carefully, it says that Linux machines were RESPONSIBLE for the attacks, not that the Linux machines were the ones hacked. It is common knowledge the preffered operating system of hackers is Linux. The article is very carefully worded to skew the meaning of it.
Granted, if you take a Linux distro, throw it on a machine and start using it connected to the internet full time, it is very vulnerable to hacking. Properly configured, Linux is very secure. Configuring it takes time and knowledge, but there are so many tools available for Linux security it gets easier everyday. There are firewalls using IPchains, logging packages, adaptive packet filtering and intrusion detection packages that are second to none, and they are all free.
Granted, if you take a Linux distro, throw it on a machine and start using it connected to the internet full time, it is very vulnerable to hacking. Properly configured, Linux is very secure. Configuring it takes time and knowledge, but there are so many tools available for Linux security it gets easier everyday. There are firewalls using IPchains, logging packages, adaptive packet filtering and intrusion detection packages that are second to none, and they are all free.
Tuned
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 261
Likes: 4
From: Montana
While it's true that a secure system relies on a judicious system administrator, I'm certain that an out-of-box install of a Linux distro is more secure than an out-of-box Windows install.
"Banks, corps, and the likes" surely don't use Windows for their secure data either. They're more than likely using Unix or a mainframe OS such as MVS/ESA, etc.
"Banks, corps, and the likes" surely don't use Windows for their secure data either. They're more than likely using Unix or a mainframe OS such as MVS/ESA, etc.
Lead Driver
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 6,340
Likes: 588
From: Amarillo, TEXAS!
Originally Posted by jasond5150
While it's true that a secure system relies on a judicious system administrator, I'm certain that an out-of-box install of a Linux distro is more secure than an out-of-box Windows install.
Originally Posted by jasond5150
"Banks, corps, and the likes" surely don't use Windows for their secure data either. They're more than likely using Unix or a mainframe OS such as MVS/ESA, etc.
Postmaster
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,439
Likes: 6
From: Spokane WA
Trending Topics
Elder User
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 866
Likes: 2
From: North Carolina
The USER... USER... USER... USER...
Nothing more, nothing less.
A secure network is only capable by secure users.
But, if it wasn't for hackers, we wouldn't have as a secure computer world as we do now (If you look at the security of the networks over the years, today data is more secure than ever seemed possible). We need people to break in for us to fix it, to make it more secure. It is kinda like a bad relationship, ever had one of those?
Ah, the great linux... Article speaks of truth.
Nothing more, nothing less.
A secure network is only capable by secure users.
But, if it wasn't for hackers, we wouldn't have as a secure computer world as we do now (If you look at the security of the networks over the years, today data is more secure than ever seemed possible). We need people to break in for us to fix it, to make it more secure. It is kinda like a bad relationship, ever had one of those?
Ah, the great linux... Article speaks of truth.
FTE Stories
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
10 Things Every Truck Owner NEEDS (2026 Edition)
Michael S. Palmer
Rezvani's Latest Post-Apocalyptic Monster Is a Ford F-150 Raptor Underneath
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Most Expensive Ford Trucks Ever Sold on Bring a Trailer
Joe Kucinski
2027 Ford Super Duty Buyer's Guide (Every Model, Engine, & Package)
Brett Foote
Top 10 Ford Truck Tragedies
Joe Kucinski
AEV FXL Super Duty - the Super Duty Raptor Ford Doesn't Make
Brett Foote
Lobo Vs Lobo: Proof the F-150 Lobo Should Be Even Lower!
Michael S. Palmer
Ford's 2001 Explorer Sportsman Concept Looks For a New Home
Verdad Gallardo
10 Best Ford Truck Engines We Miss the Most!
Joe Kucinski
Lead Driver
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 6,340
Likes: 588
From: Amarillo, TEXAS!
Originally Posted by bvoncannon
The USER... USER... USER... USER...
Nothing more, nothing less.
A secure network is only capable by secure users.
Nothing more, nothing less.
A secure network is only capable by secure users.
Originally Posted by bvoncannon
Ah, the great linux... Article speaks of truth.
Elder User
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 866
Likes: 2
From: North Carolina
Originally Posted by Pikachu
Yes, but a good administrator can force the users to be secure by controlling what they are capable of doing.
Must be a new MCSE.....
Must be a new MCSE.....
. Admins can control users all they want, it is what they can't control... Like users writing down their pw's.
Postmaster
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,628
Likes: 0
From: Baileyton, TN
Personal experience has shown me that linux is way more secure than windows.. I have been running a linux computer since spring, and have had no hacking damage, no lost programming, no blue screen of death, and no locked up computer.
All of the windows machines I have ever used have been destroyed by malicious attacks from hackers. I know that my work makes me more of a target for hackers, but since the advent of linux on my main machine, my network has remained secure.
All of the windows machines I have ever used have been destroyed by malicious attacks from hackers. I know that my work makes me more of a target for hackers, but since the advent of linux on my main machine, my network has remained secure.
Lead Driver
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 6,340
Likes: 588
From: Amarillo, TEXAS!
Originally Posted by bvoncannon
Oh, the admins, I forgot about them . Admins can control users all they want, it is what they can't control... Like users writing down their pw's.
. Admins can control users all they want, it is what they can't control... Like users writing down their pw's.
Elder User
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 589
Likes: 0
From: Canastota
We ran Linux on the cpu's at my IT class for a short while. It is much more secure, because it doesn t have as many "loop holes" as windows. And as of yet I do believe there has not been a single virus made that could get into Linux. We removed Linux in favor of XP because Linux was a big PITA to use 
. Too much work, too much typing and not enough time to learn to use it correctly, plus Linux needs a VERY fast computer to run good. I have had no problems with our XP cpu's and I believe that if you use a quality virus portector and a spyware sweeper, Windows can be secure enough. Again, there are ways around everything 
. But, if you have the time,desire and a fast enough cpu to learn Linux, it can be a reliable and secure OS.
. Too much work, too much typing and not enough time to learn to use it correctly, plus Linux needs a VERY fast computer to run good. I have had no problems with our XP cpu's and I believe that if you use a quality virus portector and a spyware sweeper, Windows can be secure enough. Again, there are ways around everything . But, if you have the time,desire and a fast enough cpu to learn Linux, it can be a reliable and secure OS.
Tuned
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 261
Likes: 4
From: Montana
Too much work, too much typing and not enough time to learn to use it correctly, plus Linux needs a VERY fast computer to run good.
I'm typing this on my Linux box which is equipped with a Pentium III 550 and 384MB of RAM. This same box is also serving my home network with Samba, Apache, MySQL, PostgreSQL, ftp, telnet, etc.
Elder User
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 589
Likes: 0
From: Canastota
We just didnt have the time to learn to use it efficiently. One of the very first thing we learned(besides binary and hex) is the commands for the Windows CLI. Some of the Linux commands may have been similar, but there were more we had to learn. Considering that most of the work we will be doing out in the work force will be with Windows, it just didnt seem feasable to go through the extra work to learn Linux. Another thing, that OS inhibited us from doing 80% of the work we needed to do, all the work was based on Windows. If we hadent had the time constraints and work issues, we may still be using Linux as our primary OS.