The truth about the Linux vs. Windows level of security
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 18

Thread: The truth about the Linux vs. Windows level of security

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    472

    The truth about the Linux vs. Windows level of security

    Source : http://www.zone-h.org/en/winvslinux2
    Moral : The moral is, in this historical period of the Internet, don't trust anybody who is "lecturing" about the inherent vulnerability of a particular Operating System.

    Please Visit the source to have a look.
    guru@linux:~> who I grep -i blonde I talk; cd ~; wine; talk; touch; unzip; touch; strip; gasp; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; gasp; umount; make clean; sleep;

  2. #2
    AO's MMA Fanatic! Computernerd22's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Miami, FL
    Posts
    795
    All I have to say is check out www.cert.org most of the vulnerabilitys are for Windows Platforms not Linux. Everyone knows if you need security go with Linux not Windows.

  3. #3
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    10
    i dont understand. what does this mean? is linux less secure than windows? ahh i got windows me and i am ok right?

  4. #4
    AO's MMA Fanatic! Computernerd22's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Miami, FL
    Posts
    795
    i dont understand. what does this mean? is linux less secure than windows? ahh i got windows me and i am ok right?
    It means the complete opposite. Linux is more secure than Windows always have been always will be! As far as running Windows ME to be honest thats a very buggy operating system that I wouldnt run I would rather run windows 98 than ME but thats my personal opionion.

  5. #5
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    10
    but in the link it says that linux is attacked more often than windows i think. how can linux be safer if linux is getting attacked all the time? the little graphs say that linux is attacked more than windows so windows must be safer than linux right?

  6. #6
    PHP/PostgreSQL guy
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    1,164
    Well, just on the 'attacking' standpoint, let's take a look at a real-life example I went through. I have a linux box that hosts pages via Apache 2.0.48. PHP 4.3.5RC3, PostgreSQL 7.3.4, the whole nine yards...

    It's the same box that two years ago, when Code Red came out, my apache got HAMMERED because of all the damned infested taken-over IIS-driven servers. In one month, I had over 80,000 hits from 900+ unique addresses. Does this mean my box is less secure? On the contrary; in this one example, my box was shining because I wasn't running the webserver that was insecure. And then I installed that great php script that someone made up halt IIS and shutdown the server if it was infected, hehe...

    In the long run, security is up to the administrator. I know die-hard windows admins who have really secure environments and I know linux admins who have holes all over the place...it's up to the administrator to secure a box and you're only as good as how much you check logs and the like, hehe.
    We the willing, led by the unknowing, have been doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have done so much with so little for so long that we are now qualified to do just about anything with almost nothing.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    51
    Although I totally agree with Vorlin on this matter, I also think the frequency of attacks are related to how easily they can be done. It's just easier to attack a windows box because it actually doesn't require the attacker to use his brains...in windows all you need is some sort of wanna-be-a-hacker- kit and click away. Logically, the second choice is linux, because it just so happens to be the easiest "encarnation" of unix.
    But on the other hand I'd really like to question the validity of this graph you brought foward ..where and how is this data being collected?

  8. #8
    Senior Member gore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    7,177
    Originally posted here by Wizard314
    but in the link it says that linux is attacked more often than windows i think. how can linux be safer if linux is getting attacked all the time? the little graphs say that linux is attacked more than windows so windows must be safer than linux right?
    If I attack a Linux server 400 times, and never get in, but attack a Mac server ONE time and gain root....Does that make the Mac I owned more secure because there was only one attack? NO! Just because it was attacked doesn't mean dick. When it gets owned, THEN it means something.

  9. #9
    @ΜĮЙǐЅŦГǻţΩЯ D0pp139an93r's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    St. Petersburg, FL
    Posts
    1,696
    On my network, there are a total of 9 machines. 5 Windows boxes and 5 Linux boxes. (I know, it doesn't add up, my laptop dual-boots so I counted it twice) I don't think any box is more secure than any other. It ALL comes down to the administrator.

    Windows just looks more tempting, to many people, it is more familiar. Properly secured, it is just as good (security wise) as Linux. I am referring to the newer versions of Windows of course.

    Although just due to a technicality, 6 of the boxes my network are more secure than the other three, due to the fact that they're behind a second router. Everytime my couch is moved, the router loses power and makes the network "ultra-secure."


    EDIT: I personally would have an easier time breaking into a Linux or BSD box than I would a Windows box, just due to the higher comfort level I have with Linux/BSD. I could get into both, it would just take longer. Funny thing is, I doubt I could ever break into a Mac, except possibly the newest MacOS which is BSD based. (Very loosely based on BSD) This doesn't mean that an old Mac is the most secure system in the world.
    Real security doesn't come with an installer.

  10. #10
    Priapistic Monk KorpDeath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    2,628
    As stated before the sheer number of attacks mean very little. Not to mention I personally know people that would be insulted if you asked to attack a windows box. Their response would be "Isn't that redundant?"


    Windows is still part of the problem not the solution. XP is perfect example.
    Mankind have a great aversion to intellectual labor; but even supposing knowledge to be easily attainable, more people would be content to be ignorant than would take even a little trouble to acquire it.
    - Samuel Johnson

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •