Is Windows more secure than BSD/Gnu/Linux/UNIX?

Is Windows more secure than BSD/Gnu/Linux/UNIX?


I just found this page for the first time, and to be honest, I'm disgusted. A lot of you probably already have seen and read this, but how about a discussion on this? Maybe prove some of these facts?

http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/facts/default.asp



Now, after you're done learning to suppress the gag reflex in your throat, reply, I'd like to discuss this.



I also just found this:

http://www.linuxworld.com.au/index.p...20;fp;2;fpid;1

Seems to be an argument about the other "Windows is more secure" Bull you're reading about.

I don't know what these people at Microsoft are on, but I'm sure of one thing, I want some.


I found these while looking here:

http://www.opensource.org/halloween/halloween11.php




Now, this has probably been discussed to death a million times on which is more secure than the other. I know it has at least once or twice before, because people here, including me, were a part of the argument.

But this page outraged me.

Now, I want a good clean discussion. Flames should be intelligent smart ass comments. Not the crap excuses for flames I've seen lately.



Things to consider BEFORE making a reply to this thread:


1. Yes, Microsoft is in fact the only company to make an OS that is still infected with viruses.

2. Down time DOES cost money for a company. Rebooting for all those security updates costs you.

3. I really don't care if you're an MCSE who trained yourself to believe the crap you got spoon fed.


Now, to keep this fair:



I'm going to use the "Break it down to what comes with what" method again, it works well and keeps everything fair:



Windows, when installed fresh, does NOT come with much.

They do NOT mention the fact that just about every Linux distribution out there, comes with about 3,000 MORE programs than Windows comes with.

Do NOT reply to tell me how your computer had XP pre-installed and you had a whole lot more than just what is listed here. That is called a store-bought computer from, for example, Compaq. They install extra software so you'll actually want it.

If you don't believe me, take a regular copy of Windows XP, NOT RESTORE DISKS, but just the one CD that Windows XP comes with, and reboot your machine with it, format, and install it.


You may add to this list if you have exactly names of programs Windows comes with, I'm not listing them though, because I don't have a Windows box, but I know what is basically has.


Windows has :


The Kernel

The User Interface

Windows update

A command prompt

Two text editors

Outlook virus spreader express

Windows Messenger

Windows Media Player

Internet Explorer

Windows Explorer



Linux has :

A LOT

About 7,000 programs. Most of which are optional software, but to be fair, I will strip Linux down to nothing but software that Windows comes with:


Since Windows has the software I listed by default, putting the same type into Linux should be fair, so for one thing :



Strip away everything from Linux except the equivalents of what Windows has:


Kernel

User Interface (Shell) (Which I am NOT listing X, because it's a separate program, unlike Windows, which MAKES you use a mouse, so deal with it)

The update is not the same on every distribution, so I'm not listing one.

Bash shell

Two text editors :

Vi

Emacs

Notepad and Word pad could'nt touch either of these, but again, I'm being fair.

Mutt E-Mail client, which can't spread viruses, worms, or load HTML E-mails, which risks your computer.

Linux also does'nt have an annoying messenger service built in and turned on by default, so I won't list one here. Although I guess you could use "talk" or the mail program.

Xine

Links

Midnight Commander


There you have it. A VERY minimal Linux system. But it now has what Windows comes with. So now, run the update program, check for security patches, and ONLY DOWNLOAD THE ONES FOR THE PROGRAMS I HAVE LISTED. Not more than Windows NOW is it?

Now, Open Source comes with the source code. In theory, Linux SHOULD have more exploits and so on should it not? Well, Microsoft, what's the answer to this? If you can look at the source code, you can find holes easier, so why are there STILL less holes in Linux?

Like I said, strip Linux down to just what Windows has, and you have a fair and fun game of "Microsoft lies" on your hands.

I'm getting tired, so I'll post this, and hope for a good discussion when I wake up.


To the whining seniors who bitch about how good AO USED to be, well, here's another chance to have a good discussion, so get off your ass and discuss.

We all know that Linux is more secure than windows :) But why does the "common" user think different, and corporatons too ! because microsoft makes software that corporations need, and Linux doesnt have or has but is a lot harder to use (people are afraid of new things). Thats why everybody thinks Windows is better, because they never used Linux or used it and gave up after 2 tries. And M$ makes programs that are easier to update and run only on the Windows Family !

This should be a good discussion !

Uhhhhh, I'm glad you jumped in to start things off, but with SUSE, RedHat, Mandrake, and a lot of other Linux OSs, there is a little icon that sits in the tray, and updates for you automatically....How is that harder than Windows? Windows makes you click "Windows update". They are the ones being hard to use....Or hard to make useful, heh.

Yeah, my main point was that M$ makes software that is compatible with their OS's only, thats what users got used to, and why would someone switch after they know how something works. I wouldnt switch from nero to any other Burning software because i know how to use Nero.

They own about 90 % of the market, they have to lie that linux sucks just to keep it that way !

Ummmm... so windows is more or less secure because some fat & stupid basterd is to dumb to find out how to update?

No, it's less secure because the people that make the updates fix one thing and create another with that. When Microsoft told us to stop using IE, they proved us right :)

Actually they didn't do anything with IE really... the problem with IE was everything was packed into one program... I mean, this thing is not only a browser but is also basicly your command promt and who knows what else. The problem isn't that they created new holes with IE, its just that they tottally ignored alot of things. And thats my anti-M$ rant... other than that I blame the idiotic (L)-users.

Enkrypt this, you sound like a fscking Linux Zealot, and I hate those as much as Windows Zealots.

Quote:

---

We all know that Linux is more secure than windows

---

This is a preassumption, and one based off of a biased and unresearched opinion than hard fact. And to be more blunt, it's the kind of statement that people give who never gave windows a shot. You didn't learn it, you followed popular (31337) opinion, and now hate it. You never solved your problems, you only said "It's because windows sucks", instead of researching and resolving them.

Tell me, did you give Windows as much as chace as you gave Linux? No, I didn't think so. Now, gore said not to rant or flame, so I'm going to contain myself here. No, I'm not a Windows Zealot. My primary OS is slackware, but don't think for a second that I won't defend both Linux and Windows OS releases against unfounded attacks.

If you want to say something is more secure than the other, don't just coined phrases you find in #2600, use documentation and facts. You want to see a secure Windows box? You want to know how to run a secure windows box?

http://www.antionline.com/showthread...=windows+phase
http://www.antionline.com/showthread...=windows+phase
http://nsa2.www.conxion.com/
http://labmice.techtarget.com/articl...ychecklist.htm

Now, tell me again why Windows is insecure? Tell me what the difference is between setting security up to max in Windows, versus setting security up to max in Linux? Just like Linux, Windows can be made secure. Just like Windows, Linux can be made secure.

A newbie can have an SELinux patched slackware with hardened kernel sources and still have their box cracked. A veteran Windows users can run windows 95 and be as solid as an unplugged OpenBSD machine. Want proof?

http://www.antionline.com/showthread...t=windows+test

Quote:

---

No, it's less secure because the people that make the updates fix one thing and create another with that.

---

Right, because Linux and 3rd party products never release patches to fix things. In fact, That's why the Linux kernel is at 1.5 still, because we haven't had to fix or improve upon any code for the past ten years.

Quote:

---

We all know that Linux is more secure than windows

---

Im sorry, i should've said that that was sarcasm.

Quote:

---

Tell me, did you give Windows as much as chace as you gave Linux?

---

Um, i never used Linux except 2 times when i used Mandrake. I use Windows all the time, because i know it inside out, (mostly), i dont know crap about linux. I have no favor in an OS, i will always stand by the line

"If the users knows how to secure it, it doesn't matter what OS it is ! "

Im just saying that the Microsoft page about "Windows is better then linux" is [partlybullshit too, they just dont want users switching to Linux.

You just cant compare *nix and Windows on that base.
Lets make environment "equal" before compare.
Lets take a dumbass user name number 1, Joe.
Install Windows:
Put cd on drive--> next-->next-->next......>finish. Its done
Lets take a dumbass user name number 2, Jack.
Linux distribution:
Put cd on drive--> next-->next-->next......>finish. Its done

Lets compare Joe' pc and Jack' pc. Can you see a difference except OS? I cant. Both are crap installations with tons of vulnerability. I bet that Joe will use Administrator as primary logon (without password) and Jack will use root. And both will install all cratp that comes on CD, doesnt matter if they need those or not.

Dont tell about a lot of utilities and so on. ITS NOT A SECURITY ISSUE. (BTW most of those free utils can be installed on Windows nowadays).

If you do the same thing with two expert (Windows expert and one Linux expert) both will be secure enough.

When you need to deploy security on *nix, its harder as deploying it on Windows.

I agree with the report. Its (nowadays) a matter of the "quality" of vulnerabilities.

MS: respond faster to new ones (that is true). But new holes on MS software use to be to critical. They DO need to take more care about code quality. (and the are doing that). MS is also preparing to defend itself when d-zero attacks appear.
*NIX: slow response but the flaws are usually hard to exploit on a short time. But the D-Zero flaws come, *NIX companies will have a bad time with the users.

Im not a fan of Windows , nor *NIX. I use to deploy enviroments with both. Both has pros and cons. On some enviroments, one is ALWAYS better than the other one.

BTW, im a Mainframe borned System Programmer, so every pc platform looks "weak" for me :)