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.

[N3WBI3]

Are you trying to look stupid?

The setups were hypothetical, however. Both were in the most basic configuration, an approach that some in the audience suggested may tilt the results in favor of Windows, which comes with more features.

Ford said the idea was to represent what an average system administrator may do, as opposed to a "wizard" who could take extra steps to provide plenty of security on a Linux setup, for instance.

Seems pretty clear they did nothing to secure the server, they just installed the components and started the service..

[N3WBI3]

A systems integrator with 10 years experience makes more than 100K. There are those that can and those that teach..

[KwasiOwusu]

"From the description of this 'study' its pretty useless to make any conclusions...
Agreed. I said much the same in my Post #316. You said it better. Thanks"


TommyDale pretty much predicted the reaction of the open source loonies in post 3:

"This theory will NEVER be accepted by the already-hate-spewing
venemous Anti-Microsoft crowd. It just cannot be!"

We pretty much predicted this normal ostrich like reaction from you guys.
So what's new? LOL!
Same old living in denial by the open source loonies.
Read this. That should cheer you up some. :)
Pretty much corborates what this test came up with.

http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/10/035225&from=rss

My own favorite parts:

"the developers of the GRSecurity kit and RSBAC are getting increasingly angry over security holes in Linux and the design of the Linux Security Modules"

AND

"Given that I'm getting lousy uptimes on my Linux servers because of the mandatory kernel upgrades, I certainly welcome a (constructive) critical look at Linux kernel security. "

Ain't life just sweet?

[KwasiOwusu]

"A systems integrator with 10 years experience makes more than 100K. "


Depends on the size of the company, the size of its IT infrastructure etc etc.
You'll find that most sys admins with 10 years experience DON'T make $100,000, while most university professors with 10 years experience make more than that, since their salaries are standardized to some extent.
Like I said, if even Ward Churchill is making close to $100,000....

[N3WBI3]

Best post of the day...

[N3WBI3]

My theory: Kwazy is gay, I haev proof really... And I know This theory will NEVER be accepted by the already-hate-spewing
venemous Anti-Linux crowd. It just cannot be!"

[KwasiOwusu]

;Are you trying to look stupid? "

Coming from the King of stupid , I take that as a compliment.
Is that all you open source lunatics are capable of?
Hurl nasty abuse when you are getting clobbered on pints?
You are a pathetic miserable excuse for a human being, sir.

[KwasiOwusu]

"My theory: Kwazy is gay, I haev proof really"

Refer you to my post 341.

[KwasiOwusu]

Post 347.

[N3WBI3]

The average U.S. salary for a full-time college professor is $51,000, but this can vary greatly, based on the geographic region, type of school, teaching field and experience. Through some simple research, you can become familiar with the salary ranges and benefits for professors in a given field and area.

According to a 2002-03 survey by the American Association of University Professors, salaries for full-time faculty averaged $64,455. By rank, the average was $86,437 for professors, $61,732 for associate professors, $51,545 for assistant professors, $37,737 for instructors, and $43,914 for lecturers.

The middle 50 percent of computer systems software engineers earned between $58,500 and $91,160 in 2002. The lowest-paid 10 percent earned less than $45,890, and the highest-paid 10 percent earned more than $111,600.

[N3WBI3]

The setups were hypothetical, however. Both were in the most basic configuration, an approach that some in the audience suggested may tilt the results in favor of Windows, which comes with more features.

Ford said the idea was to represent what an average system administrator may do, as opposed to a "wizard" who could take extra steps to provide plenty of security on a Linux setup, for instance.

To this you said that he did not use a basic out of the box config...

[ThePythonicCow]

Best post of the day...

I've agreed with much you've posted, but not this. The post you praise says:

The Nux uber alles crowd is just as stupid as the MS uber alles crowd.

This is roughly equivalent, to my ears, to dismissing all political discussion as stupid bantering. There are choices to be made, sometimes for good reasons, and not everyone commenting on the choices is just trying to score debating points. Some are honestly and competently looking for insight.

[ThePythonicCow]

Moral relativism, I think it's called, in matters of morality. There really are Rights and Wrongs, and there really are good reasons to choose between Microsoft and Open Source.

[N3WBI3]

I took this as him bashing kneepadders on either side. Now I think there are more (or maybe just louder) windows kneepadders here. But any of the 'my os is 1337 and youres 5ux0r' is not helping the matter..

[ThePythonicCow]

But any of the 'my os is 1337 and youres 5ux0r' is not helping the matter..

True.

[N3WBI3]

I dont qute think we can compare this to moral relativism. There are rights and wrongs for sure but sometimes those will point to MS being a better solution and sometimes those will point to Linux being better. The only 'moral' issue I have with Microsoft is how is does business, nothing about the fact its source is closed..

[ThePythonicCow]

I agree that it's nor a moral issue. Though I wasn't clear, I was comparing the 'relativism' part.

There is a difference between scoring debaters points and looking for insight. There is a reality, and our words can be used to illuminate, or obscure, that reality.

[ThePythonicCow]

There are rights and wrongs for sure but sometimes those will point to MS being a better solution and sometimes those will point to Linux being better.

Yes - neither Microsoft nor Linux is better in all ways. I too use both, even as I prefer Linux, and make good money in Linux.

[JustAnAmerican]

I don't mind debates but this individual is back to his/her tricks again. Even when posters correct something he still harps on the original post. He/she has been removed before for just this practice.

[usgator]

I speak from personal experience only. The few people I know (I work, usually, in almost exclusive MS environments) act the way I mentioned. It's unreal how vehemently they defend this OS. Every time they say the holy word "Linux" I expect them to cross themselves.

One time our Red Hat server crashed and we got into a heated discussion that it had to be my fault because it is IMPOSSIBLE for Linix to crash. Yes, impossible, because they had NEVER seen it happen before. I guess my unclean, MS hands fouled it somehow. Guess I should recite the "act of contrition".

Just the mention of the word Microsoft {spit} sends them into a frenzy. I mean, come on, it's an operating system not a freakin' religion!