Quote:
we can have a really secure default Windows install.
Why do you want a secure default install? The default configuration of a system should be the most functional possible, not the most secure. Security should be applied on a case by case basis with the help of the trusted facilities manual, not with sweeping broad strokes laid down by the vendor with no regard for the specific implementation.
Quote:
NT is cool but one thing about it is that Microsoft used to have a thing on their web page saying that NT should be rebooted at least once a month to deal with memory leaks. This is all fine for a home user, but not for a server.
Two points in response to this, one is this is a legal safety net. Two, NT servers at the enterprise level are intended to be run in clusters, so rebooting the systems one at a time has virtually no effect on business. This is a stark contrast to the mentality of many UN*X operations where a single HP-UX or whatever system with god knows how many processors does the work by itself and single system uptime is a far greater concern.
Quote:
Now, install Linux with nothing but the things you get with Windows.
You'll end up with the Kernel, and toss in mpg123 for the media player, links for a browser, Vi and Emacs, and Midnight Commander.
Don't forget the weaker, less finely grained access control system. Don't forget the gaping security concern of superuser account. Where's the reference monitor? Need I go on? ;)
Quote:
When people say Linux has more security flaws than Windows, they are counting an install that has everything, and Linux comes with A LOT more than Windows does.
When people like me say it, they are speaking of the operating system's security architecture, not applications that run on it. That would be discussing those applications' security, not the operating system's. A secure operating system can protect itself from insecure applications.
Quote:
Just my opinion, but Windows as a secure server platform is a fairytail unless you're REALLY good.
Including things like "really good" negates the entire argument. :-P My point is that NT has a greater capacity for security as it has a more powerful security architecture.
Quote:
Everyone has it, knows it, and there's a ton of software out there to hurt or hack it.
Exactly, everyone has it... what does this mean? It means that bugs spend significantly less time in 0-day land. Is this a good thing or a bad thing?
Quote:
linux is open source and has a much greater development staff than any closed-source development. You don't have to wait forever for developers to fix problems that the users find or report.
Ah this fine argument... two responses (per my usual), one made a post awhile ago (in my attached documents, I'll look later if you can't find it) that featured an article quantifying the average kernel bug's life span in Linux... the average was over 3 years, with some lasting as long as seven years! The second point is that programmers know code, as a rule they know very little about security architecture... microkernel development, reference monitors, more finely grained access controls, they lot. Because Linux is open source, with a programmer at the helm, there has been no overall focus toward a superior security model, all Linux has been doing is making the same mistakes UN*X did over 20 years ago.
Quote:
We have debated this topic long and hard on which is the best OS and lost of people have always commented. What is comes down to is one thing.
THE ADMINISTRATOR!!
This argument would indicate that the two and in fact all systems have exactly the same capacity for security and the only difference is the admin... I hope the rest of you know better.
[quote]Windows goit tomany leaks and holes.[quote]
Name one that actually affects CIA and can't be fixed by proper configuration.
cheers,
catch
