Close Source more secure?....

I found this link on how close source O/S's are more secure...have a read, u might like it :)

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t269-s2112227,00.html

A good read.

He makes some excellent points, especially regarding the MS-HP-IBM alliance to create secure systems. They are geared more towards kickbacks from content distributors than it is to creating a more secure system for the PC. If you want security, redesign and reimplement TCP/IP as well as all Server software. THAT will create secure PCs.

I also agree with the author of the article's stance on Allchin's statement:

Quote:

---

"The more creators of viruses know about how anti-virus mechanisms in Windows operating systems work, the easier it will be to create viruses or disable or destroy those mechanisms,"

---

This is an absurd statement, because if written properly, code can't be exploited. It's not possible to exploit bugs on a properly written application, because ideally any bugs will be non-exploitable, or there won't be any bugs at all(highly unlikely). :)

Microsoft is terribly amusing. They keep trying to perpetuate the myth that it's not possible to create secure software, simply because they can't write it well in the first place.

very well said...atm if someone who knew how to code would actually go out there a develop a well written package of services, exploits would probably not be a problem...Linux i am sad to say has turned towards the microsoft way of software....lots of Distro's now adays run services that where made poorly....i think it may be time to get a group together and write up a good o/s, and if it is well written it wont matter if it is open source or close source.

Quote:

---

i think it may be time to get a group together and write up a good o/s

---

or you could download bsd.....
But then with the big apache bug that was recently released.....guess it doesn't really matter...

yeap...the truth is BSD is really secure but even then the service it would run arent exactly the best....ther kernel bugs arent that big it is the services that are exploitable

Microsoft can go down the toilet with their "Closed-source is more secure." If its more secure then how come there are 5 new patches to the OS every week. Sounds like a load of bugs to patch. Microsoft thinks every hacker wants to destroy them, and we are all evil, little do they know.
I would like to ask M$ this, "If windows is more secure from viruses, how come there are way, way, way, way, way more viruses and they are lots worse?"
Windows is way more vulnerable to viruses since it has lots of things the virus can use.
emrys: Anyone who wants to start that OS tell me I'll help.

huntx cool...atm i am not a programmer of that quality to recreate services :)....but as for why there are more windows visues made than linux, it is quite simple there are more Windows Viruses cuzthere are more windows users...but as for worms they are pretty even windows servers and linux servers have worms made for them on a equal basis

This is yet another attempt at Microsoft to show that it develops secure products. This whole issue between closed and open source is pathetically stupid. Think of it logically...

Secure = Actually secure, not how many holes you don't know about...

Opensource = a lot of code validation and auditing to create a finally secure product. Other than this, such open alternatives are very flexible thus making it easy (even too easy) to create something very secure

Closedsource = doesn't need any quality, it just needs to work. You know people won't be insulting your code if you haven't written it well/securely/properly.

I believe that open source systems dont have as many viruses because the majority of users who use open source software are more interested in learning about then they are in creating them and destroying stuff...but i could be wrong. It's just my perspective, i think virri is lame.

Darkk Inferno

hmm i dunno history tells us there has been lots of Linux/Unix/BSD worms b4 us....just lots more lame virii for windows cuz there are more personal computers that run windows....usually linux isnt a desktop OS...that is the main reason in my opinion