Operating Systems > Linux and UNIX

Linux hacked more often than Windows?

<< < (2/2)

Orethrius:

quote:Originally posted by M. O'Brien:
"The mi2g study concentrated on 'overt digital attacks' and didn't include more general forms of attack such as viruses and worms."

In short, Windows can be violated automatically and rampantly through viruses and worms while Linux requires an "overt digital attack."  

Perhaps Windows would be violated more frequently through "overt digital attacks" if it wasn't so overwhelmingly easy to compromise it with a worm or virus.
--- End quote ---


Quoted for truth.

 
quote:
Anyway, you can harden Linux.  You can firewall, patch safely, restrict permissions, and enable SELinux.  What choices do you have for Windows?

--- End quote ---


Plenty.  The issue here, though, is that they're all HARDWARE, not SOFTWARE.  The end-user shouldn't HAVE to dump $200 into a broadband router just to shunt malicious traffic (even though that's what I did).

savet:
I don't know what today's statistic is, but at one point I thought about 80% of web servers were running a Redhat/Apache combo.  If this statistic was true, and every server was compromised, 80% of the compromised servers would still be Linux.  That doesn't sound too impressive to me.

What would be more impressive would be the percentage of servers running a particular OS vs the number of servers running that OS that were compromised.  That's the only way these statistics will be helpful.

IMHO, this is like saying that 100 people died from gunshot wounds and we need more gun control....when 90 of those gunshots were suicide.  The statistics are correct, but the logic is flawed.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page