Linux Not as Secure as Windows Server Curiously, this news will come as a surprise to some people, but according to a report from the security experts at mi2g, open-source poster child Linux is losing the security fight--big time--to Windows Server. Yes, you read that right: In May 2003 alone, Linux-based corporate and government systems experienced 19,208 successful breaches worldwide, whereas similarly oriented Microsoft Windows Server systems suffered only 3801 breaches. During this time period, more than 75 percent of all server-based breaches occurred on Linux systems; Windows systems were responsible for just 15 percent of breaches. Furthermore, the reports says that Windows-based systems were far more resilient than Linux-based systems during the Iraq war months from March to May 2003, a time of increased hacking activity. mi2g, which has been tracking server attacks since 1995, now oversees a database that contains more than 220,000 individual attacks and more than 7000 hacker groups. So why are Linux servers more easily compromised? The security experts quote several primary reasons: First, most Linux servers are improperly configured and don't come with decent default security configurations. Second, the open-source community doesn't have a coherent "trustworthy computing" initiative. Third, Linux is a target because of its increasing popularity in the server world. And, fourth, Frank Stallone. In other words, everything I've been saying about Windows, Linux, and security not only is true but is evolving in a wonderfully predictable way. Shouldn't we stop all the bogus "Windows isn't secure" baloney when a far less secure competitor is just waiting to be compromised?

That is all just hogwash. One reason is that 1 security flaw in Linux gets counted as 15-20 because they count it for each distro. In other words 1 Apache flaw is counted each time 1 for RedHat 1 for Suse 1 for Slackware and so on. The improper configuration part is probably correct. A lot of people on Broadband go and install everything. So there they sit with an open spam relay and server etc. As for the trustworthing computing microsuck is so good at it that they manged to knock hundereds of thousands of there users offline after they applied one of the security updates. Now that is secure if you are not on line You should be secure. They are jusy playing on the FUD created by SCO. Take Care Ron

I remeber way back I was trying to copy genuine Microsft operating disks with a logicel,old one, in Win 3.1 and I made a simple error and this started a nasty bug that erasd me AUTOEXEC.BAT file,when it happened I just thought what a bunch of nasty people

Sitting here typing on a RH8.0 laptop on a network that has 2 Sun Sol file servers, 2 RH linux web servers, and 2 MS2k DC's I can honestly say that seceruity has absoulutly nothing whatso ever to do with the OS. It has everything to do with the people who install and admin the box. "If you build it they will come" hackers that is. If you are on the public net, you must protect yourself regardless of whose OS or propaganda you chose to belive. No matter what we do to protect ourselves, sooner or later somebody with too much time on their hands and a piss poor attitude will find a way to crack/hack in and give you a bad day.

But wait ....listen to this.Those copies of genuine microsoft operating system disks for WIN 3.1.Using the logicel i had I made two sets of 9 diskettes copies then (and as it goes I was trying to sell those copies as a financial buisness venture)Then as I tried to make the third It sent out a bug to eat away at my Autoexec.bat file--so there must have been a "time versus copies"non duplication default written in to the disks___now thats what I call crafty--and uncalled for.

As well as unheard of, made many copies of win 3.1, (but never tried to sell them), and never had any problems like that. You must have had some other problems, copy protection was not that advanced back in the win3.2 days.

Windows 3.1 was 7 disks. The last one was just printer drivers.. and I never heard of copy protection on them... Deleting autoexec.bat doesn't stop system from booting anyway.. and there was undelete with dos 5.0 And I never heard of windows 3.2 .. what are you guys talking about??