Study finds Windows more secure than Linux

The Seattle Time ^ | 2/17/05 | Brier Dudley

[rit]

SAN FRANCISCO — Believe it or not, a Windows Web server is more secure than a similarly set-up Linux server, according to a study presented yesterday by two Florida researchers.

The researchers, appearing at the RSA Conference of computer-security professionals, discussed the findings in an event, "Security Showdown: Windows vs. Linux." One of them, a Linux fan, runs an open-source server at home; the other is a Microsoft enthusiast. They wanted to cut through the near-religious arguments about which system is better from a security standpoint.

"I actually was wrong. The results are very surprising, and there are going to be some people who are skeptical," said Richard Ford, a computer-science professor at the Florida Institute of Technology who favors Linux.

[StJacques]

"So long as the app has an API interface, yes it can.."

An API interface? Aren't you referring to an "Application Server" here, which would provide the "API interface"? Like Kerberos or one of Vintela's products? (Or a custom-built one specifically designed for the purpose.)

"Yes infact we do some of that at my shop, our Java guys are pretty sharp. There is a company called openconnedt that sells such products as well."

Are you telling me your Java guys are doing this without one of those third-party products, i.e. "Application Servers," or an interface constructed for handling the communication placed on the mainframe? Note: Sun Microsystems will tell you that application servers are needed to form a bridge between Java apps and other apps written and installed in non-object-oriented programming languages.

"Yes so long as the other server is listening for it, mind you directly calling is an aweful idea and leads to security mess later down the road.."

The phrase "so long as the other server is listening for it" makes clear that an interface must be constructed to handle the communication. .NET apps do not require such an interface.

The problem you cannot get away from here is that something must be either installed to form a bridge between applications of differing types installed on UNIX and servers running distinct operating systems or an interface must be specially constructed to handle the interaction. That cross-platform interoperability is not available on a continuous basis to enable apps installed on UNIX servers to communicate with other apps of differing types installed on servers running different operating systems. In .NET no additional installations are required. You are cross-platform enabled from the git-go.

[Poser]

"I'm telling you Linux is about a year or two away from taking over the consumer market."

At some point in the first half of the 1980s I attended a conference in Boston. Two of the featured speakers were Jim Seymour and John C. Dvorak. They were debating whether UNIX would replace Windows.

Nothing has changed.

Linux is a threat to UNIX, not Windows.

[StJacques]

". . . Linux is a threat to UNIX, not Windows."

That is the absolute truth and there are quite a few site on the web touting Linux's advantages over UNIX to support that.

[usgator]

I'm telling you Linux is about a year or two away from taking over the consumer market.

So you think Linux will over-take a market that they currently only have an 8%, or so, share in?  In 2 years?

ummm ... okay, if you say so.

[Poser]

I didn't say that.

I said Linux will hurt UNIX.

I finally got the new Fedora Core installed on my dual boot Win2K box. It works pretty well, but I haven't been able to get the network settings right for logging onto our domain. It accesses the internet reliably now.

[usgator]

I said Linux will hurt UNIX.

Oh.  Never mind.

Can anyone PLEASE answer the question I placed in #16 and/or #18?

PLEASE?

[usgator]

Can anyone answer the postings in #413 and/or #418?

Come on!  Anyone?  

Bueller?  Bueller?

[Poser]

Yes. I've had to call for reinstalls on some MS products and never had a problem.

Linux seems to want two partitions, one for the operating system and data and another for swapping out memory. I think mine is 16 gig and 4 gigs. The other 20 gigs is Win2K. I suggest starting with a drive that isn't fully partitioned. Linux likes to make its own partitions.

My installation is Fedora Core. The Anaconda installer handled it nicely and set up the dual boot. I had Partition Magic, but I didn't need it. If Win2K was already installed, I could have used Partition Magic to shrink the partition and open up some space.

[usgator]

I suggest starting with a drive that isn't fully partitioned

That would be the best way, but the partition is there and it's huge and I don't want to lose important data.  It's backed up but it would require a long time to put the stuff back on.

[Poser]

In that case, Norton Partition Magic will allow you to split your partitions or shrink the ones you have and open up space for linux partitions.

[usgator]

Thanks.  I'll look into that.  My main question is about setting up the bootloader.  First it asks for partitioning.  What should I do?  Use auto-allocate or set it up myself?  Should I set the partitions as "/","swap","Home" or is there a better way?  The partitions were set up as hdb5,hdb6,hdb7.

[Poser]

Once you have the space available, let the boot loader do its own partitions. It knows what it wants. It will also install what you need for dual booting. (at least that's what Anaconda did)

I tried using Partition Magic to set up my Linux partitions, but it wasn't necessary. Just give it enough unpartitioned space to do its work.

[usgator]

Thanks Poser, did all the above still comes up with "Disk not Bootable"

I'm currently using Mandrake ... would Anaconda be better to use?

[Poser]

Anaconda is the installation program for Fedora Core from fedora.redhat.com

It is not the Linux program. Whatever the installation program may be for Mandrake, it should recognize existing Windows partitions and existing unpartitioned space.

I'm sure there are some people here that have installed Mandrake in a dual boot setup. I wouldn't change flavors just for that reason.

It installed and worked nicely without a hitch for me. The only time I had a problem was when I tried to create the Linux partition before installing. When I simply left the space unpartitioned, it worked.

The first time through, this can be very frustrating. Even after you get it isntalled, there are some things that must be done that aren't particularly intuitive. You will probably have to tell Linux that it should turn on your Ethernet card.

[usgator]

Thanks ... you've been helpful. I'll just keep trying until I get until i get it working

[yellowhammer]

Bump

[Bush2000]

How can you remember? You weren't there. Unless you remember stealing my pictures and posting them, for which you got your post pulled.

Steal your pictures? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! You have an overactive imagination, dumbass. People discovered pictures that YOU posted elsewhere -- and put links to them here. And imagine our surprise when you tore them down as soon as you found out that people were laughing at you...

You not only know nothing about computer security...

Dream on, Linux fanboy.

... you don't know anything about medieval garb...

You're right. All of you medieval peasants look alike...

[Bush2000]

Abstract: Open source, including Linux, is being deployed by a majority of companies in 2004, yet we question whether customers are adequately prepared to deal with the costs and risks of managing these environments. The allure of free software is accelerating the deployment of open source platforms, but open source is not free and may actually increase financial and business risk.

Discussions with five companies that tracked their total costs indicated Linux was between 5% and 20% more expensive than Windows. There were two distinct situations where Linux was the clear cost winner: Unix migrations and Linux-only deployments. Linux, and other open source software can provide big benefits to the organization, however, companies need to know what to expect, and plan appropriately to mitigate these concerns.

The Linux zealots are never going to accept that their snakeoil costs more. It's a religious thing. If they accept it, they get excommunicated from Slashdot.

[antiRepublicrat]

Linux is a threat to UNIX, not Windows.

Given Microsoft's campaign against Linux, it's obvious that Microsoft thinks Linux is a threat to Windows.

[antiRepublicrat]

The Linux zealots are never going to accept that their snakeoil costs more.

Depends on the case. I remember Microsoft going to Largo, Florida to get that successful migration and anti-FUD nightmare reversed. Largo's IT chief said the Microsoft reps left after admitting they couldn't match the low Linux TCO (although they could have given better TC0).