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

 

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

 

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!

 

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.

 

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.

 

I agree.

That's no lie. The only to make a WinD'ohs box secure is to remove the network card, removable media drives, keyboard and monitor.....

 

WindowsITPro.com

 

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.

 

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.....

 

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.

 

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.

 

Which is yet another reason not to give users elevated privileges on any network connected machine, not even their own.

 

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.

 

It is unfortunate that GUI "pointing and clicking" is equated with ease of use. There is nothing more powerful, elegant, or beautiful than a Unix/Linux command line. I'd highly recommend anyone in IT learn to use the Unix/Linux command line. At least, learn some XP command line utilities.

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.

 

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.