Printable View
Right-o! Time and time again, this debate comes up, its only as secure as the person setting it up.Quote:
Originally posted here by devpon
Good point gore, it just seems like there are alot of studies coming from different angles all of a sudden.
As has been mentioned over and over, it basically comes down to the admin. of said system(s) to maintain it properly.
stupid reports.
And it looks like we have yet another one that's cropped up:
http://www.desktoppipeline.com/trends/159904707
And I think it smells just as fishy. Indeed, the "researchers" were again paid by Microsoft.
Check out RedHat's response though:
http://blogs.redhat.com/people/archive/000201.html
Interesting stuff eh?
These studies are only as accurate as the people who test them :)
Im sorry but i fail to see how this has anything to do with windows Vs linux security. Surely if you want to know which OS is more secure then you should be trying to exploit the same program on each. What im saying is from what I gather they are comparing 2 *different* webservers made by *different* companys and expect this to show them which OS is more secure? shouldnt they be finding a webserver that runs on both linux and windows, set them up the same way on both and THEN drawing conclusions about the OS rather then looking at some software for each OS and pretend that the OS is the cause for everything?
Well hellforgedangel, at least you're thinking... sort of.
While you are correct in stating that the study is flawed as a result of inequal configuration, you are off on your reasoning behind this.
1. Comparing two different systems using the same product for security doesn't give any better results. What security are you comparing? The OS or the product?
2. Are you suggesting that Windows and Linux be tested using a web server that neither of them ships with as a better example than using the webservers that are bundled with them? I fail to understand this logic.
cheers,
catch
of course windows is more secure than linux...well atleast when I tested the two servers I set up. Then again...I dont know jack about linux and I spend most of the day working with windows servers. So it has to be linuxes fault for being a less secure server right?
Actually yes, yes it is. Do you know why? Because there is no widely recognized security manual. With Windows you can just download security checklists from microsoft.com, so even if you have never before used Windows, you can bring it to a widely accepted secure state.Quote:
So it has to be linuxes fault for being a less secure server right?
cheers,
catch
sure there is... www.google.com and search for "linux security tips" very widley known and helpful.Quote:
Because there is no widely recognized security manual
my point is the argument should not be "which is more secure", but "which has th poential to be the most secure" and the answer to that is the one that is locked in a cage 20 feet deep without an internet connection.
"sure there is... www.google.com and search for "Linux security tips" very widely known and helpful."
ROFL
So if I post a page that says "Use root for everything." and I title the page "Linux security tip" and google brings it up...
No assurance! If you use google you'll find about a million different, and many mutually exclusive security tips. The TFM needs to be published by the developer and needs to be widely accepted, otherwise it is pointless.
The rest of your post is arguably the apex of the inane.
cheers,
catch
That would be http://www.google.com/linuxQuote:
catch, I understand were you are comming from, I have read many of your posts were linux is concerned. Just because it is not widely accepted, a user or business should not follow a best practise approach? Any of the articles on securing linux is totaly useless? I just don't see how linux is so bad/insecure when there are a number of businesses(sp) and countries using it.