Linux: More Vulnerable Than Windows?

[NeuTron]

Wickdgin-
You make some good points. I never thought abou the fact that the source code being available makes it tough to secure.

[sn4k3]

sure, the statistics are going to be inaccurate in the great debate of which is the best os (m$ vs linux)
taking into consideration that the source is freely available for linux and you also need to take into account that because m$ has been so much more widely used, it is naturally going to be the most targeted.
i think that the recent change in the vulnerability ratio between the two oses is due largely to the indication that linux is gaining in popularity with the masses.

[NullDevice]

well, linux holes get fixed in a very short span...advisories give enough data..and sometimes even tell how a normal user can do that without downloading any patch .. by modifying the code and recompiling..that the biggest adavtage the Linux community has ove windows..where the zero-day exploits are frequent..becoz M$ doesnt comes up with the patch in a day.. also linux is "strings free" OS .. it gives the user behind the screen enough ways to go around the problem...

[slarty]

One other thing:

Have you seen how much software Linux distributions bundle these days? Is it surprising that there aren't more bugs, when you do tend to get a lot more packages in Linux than Windows.

My Debian came on 7 CDs.

[mohaughn]

Originally posted here by Wickdgin
**
The number of vulnerabilities reported do not give a good metric to determine the security of a product. The more vulnerabilities reported, is also the more vulnerabilities fixed. This rule is even more applicable in an open source model, where bug fixes are often available almost immediatly. Propriety bug fixes are not only delayed much further, but sometimes never even come out (companies often drop support of older products).

I'll say it again, this report was not written with the number of reported vulnerabilities. The data that was used was actual successful attacks.

[er0k]

Originally posted here by theuser
According to a recent articles by www.geek.com, the number of linux vulnerabilties has surpased the number of windows vulnerabilties. They cite research performed by a UK firm called MI2G.



They go on to say that the likely cause of this is not only due to the Linux operating system. They indicate that the users of less-expensive or free (oh-yeah) software likely have less money to secure their systems than a Fortune 500 company.



I think the lesson here, is that it doesn't really matter what OS you use if the user is careless.

-Enough Said,
theuser

yes but they fail to tell you that the vulnerabilities in windows OS's (heh if you can call them such) were much more dangerous and more difficult to patch.

Stealing a quote from Bjarne Stroustrup and modifying it a bit for the climate: "Its hard to shoot yourself in the foot with windows, but when you do, you blow off your whole leg"

well maybe it isnt that difficult to shoot yourself in the foot with windows if you know what you are doing enough to make the mistakes.. but its a cool quote :P

Originally posted here by slarty
One other thing:

Have you seen how much software Linux distributions bundle these days? Is it surprising that there aren't more bugs, when you do tend to get a lot more packages in Linux than Windows.

My Debian came on 7 CDs.

can i get a w00t !

[akhooja]

Linux is more vulnerable , ahhhhhhhh , maybe or may not be

but one thing is sure windows vulnerablities are jst straight forward any script kiddie can do the stuff


regards

[the_JinX]

you know why linux is so vulnerable, becouse people are trying to make it installable by an idiot..

the easier it gets.. the more holes !!

so long for MHO

[Louie]

Let's also take into account how much of the web is hosted by linux and how much is hosted by Windows.

If Linux makes up 75% of the arena(I am not sure what it is) and Winblows is 25% of course the hacks will be higher in Linux!

[er0k]

Originally posted here by the_JinX
you know why linux is so vulnerable, becouse people are trying to make it installable by an idiot..

the easier it gets.. the more holes !!

so long for MHO

yesssssiirrrr

/me still doesnt know what rh and mdk, suse, and other smaller linux distro's problems are... they are just trying to compete with windows now instead of being content with a general performance whoopass

at least we still have slack and gentoo!

theres also always the occasional bsd lurking in the options

I dont think slack, gentoo, or *bsd will ever convert over to a redhat or a suse....

If slack9 were i386 optimized it woul d be perfect, just be ready for PhoeNIX - Pretty much slack but compatible with i386/i586/i686