Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: Symantec Deliver a Bombshell About Windows

  • Subject: Re: Symantec Deliver a Bombshell About Windows
  • From: Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 03:55:06 +0000
  • Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
  • Organization: schestowitz.com / MCC / Manchester University
  • References: <dusacn$104l$1@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk> <dusddp21k5u@enews1.newsguy.com> <qlv8e3-bs7.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net>
  • Reply-to: newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: KNode/0.7.2
__/ [ The Ghost In The Machine ] on Friday 10 March 2006 20:00 \__

> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, NoStop
> <nostop@xxxxxxxxxx>
>  wrote
> on Fri, 10 Mar 2006 09:35:15 -0800
> <dusddp21k5u@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>> On Friday 10 March 2006 08:42 am, Roy Schestowitz had this to say in
>> comp.os.linux.advocacy:
>>> A new study seems to concur with the famous Schneier article:
>>> http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/01/linux_security.html
>>> The following was published yesterday, as part of Symantec's study:
>>> ,----[ Snipptets ]
>>> | A test has revealed that a Linux server is far less likely to be
>>> | compromised. In fact, unpatched Red Hat and SuSE servers were not
>>> | breached at all during a six-week trial, while the equivalent Windows
>>> | systems were compromised within hours.
>>> | 
>>> | [...]
>>> | 
>>> | The report also found that the Firefox browser had fewer than Microsoft
>>> | Internet Explorer, due to a revision in the way Symantec counts bugs;
>>> | and that unpatched versions of Windows last just over an hour on the
>>> | Internet before being compromised, among other findings.
>>> `----
>> What a bunch of bullshit. I've not seen an unpatched Windows last longer
>> than 10 minutes without being compromised. Then again the author could be
>> using dialup. :-)
> The new XP firewall helps a little.  A published test suggests it
> might survive a week. :-)  (I'd have to look.)

Such  studies *completely* shatter arguments that Windows servers, as  op-
posed  to Windows desktops, are rather steady and reliable. It was only  a
fortnight  ago that one of our (as in 'their') Windows servers got whacked
by  a  virus, which in turn borked the AV software and brought mail  to  a
halt, department-wide.

Then  comes  the issue of stability. The SAN server was recently  recently
replaced  by  Linux, after many years of sporadic downtimes. The  Exchange
server  has been extremely flaky for ever a year. Even buying a new one as
a  replacement didn't help. It was suffering from bugs, too. Whenever  one
hears  about  the Windows servers, it's in the context of trouble. I  will
not even refer to a formidable factor which is /cost/.

Best wishes,


Roy S. Schestowitz      |    "How do I set my laser printer on stun?"
http://Schestowitz.com  |    SuSE Linux     |     PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
  3:45am  up 2 days 20:22,  7 users,  load average: 0.39, 0.46, 0.42
      http://iuron.com - help build a non-profit search engine

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index