The truth about the Linux vs. Windows level of security

[gore]

In theory DOS is the most secure system in the world, as it is single user single tasking, and would, in theory, be hard to get hacked into, as it couldn't handle a second user.

If you want to make Windows 9X more multi user, install a Trojan, like Sub7. That way it can handle remote log ins much better

[KorpDeath]

My Amiga 4000 040 is pretty damn secure. hehehe

[NullDevice]

well friedns i think all of u missed one very important point that is the moral of the story thats why i posted that along with the link here. It states
"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."

So its basically the administrator who makes the web server secure and not the OS LSD-PL working on windows, Xforce ISS working on windows, iSec breaking linux....we have groups of nerd geeks who work to break the OS to make it more secure...
now the job of the administrator starts to keep himself updated and implement the required patches updates on time and take corrective/ preventive actions. be it by taking more pains on one OS and less on the other.

so again repeating the moral of the story.
"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."

[!mitationRust]

Originally posted here by Vorlin

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. [/B]

Speaking of the admin, my friends always hammer this in my mind, that the ability to write scripts seperates the looser admins from the uber admins. Im glad we have some hardcore admins around here.....well, I go back to reading my Orielly books.

[WarTux]

Linux and windows as far as which is being more secure.
I would have to also say linux.
But linux is probably hacked more because more "hackers" utilize the os So more attacks are going to hit linux then windows.
I agree windows me is the worse version of windows ever made to me.
You are very liable to be "hacked" and crippled running me.

[hellforgedangel]

Erm to all those people saying that X is better than Y. Correct me if im wrong but those figures to me seem like they are plotting "Attacks" Against a system NOT "Successfull attacks". Now i may be barking up the wrong tree here but to me it seems like all that info is completely irrelivant in an argument of how secure a certain OS is because no matter how secure it is people will still attack, They may or may not be successfull at this.

[Edit]

In my View no OS is more secure than another it depends fully on the admin and the users. Say for example i have a linux machine with the root password written on the screen verses a windows machne with all the updates on and a firewall etc. Can you see my point here basically im saying no OS can be judged on how secure it is unless you have standard conditions for both OS'es.

[slick8790]

In my View no OS is more secure than another it depends fully on the admin and the users. Say for example i have a linux machine with the root password written on the screen verses a windows machne with all the updates on and a firewall etc. Can you see my point here basically im saying no OS can be judged on how secure it is unless you have standard conditions for both OS'es.

i completely agree. the box is only as good as the admin. as for linux "always being more secure" , as computernerd22 said, that is not so. Lets say i have a win98se box with all new patches and a very old version of mandrake or redhat without. An OS can be as secure as any other Os, some just need a little more work. the only reason people say linux is more secure is because it is open source. just because people can see the code doesnt mean they can find all the vulnerabilities.


slick

[neel]

from the same source (see post #1 in this trhead):

So far, so good except from one detail: the only exact action after watching these data is that

YOU SHOULD SEND ALL THIS ANALYSIS AND THESE GRAPHS IN /DEV/NULL

Why? The reason is simple.

First of all, somebody might argue that the data should be re-evaluated and proportioned to the total amount of worldwide installations.

Second, crackers are choosing OS depending of what is "leet" at that very moment (remember the Solaris Armageddon 18 months ago?)

Availability of 0days for particular OSs is also contributing to the "mumbo jumbo" curves of the above graph.

EVEN THEN, EVERYTHING SHOULD STILL GO TO /DEV/NULL

In fact, nowadays many of the intrusions are performed at database or application level.

Regardless the OS.

Regardless the web server.

Sql injection and file inclusion are the most used tecniques in the latest months. This is happening because the usual "availability" of exploiting codes has been constantly decreasing over the last 12 months since groups like Teso has stopped to release to the public.

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.

also a more common way of doing anything with a website you shouldn't be doing is by exploiting the code (php/asp/etc), wich is os independant