On Thu, 10 May 2007 17:52:30 -0700, Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>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 |
>> | 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
>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.