Hadron Quark wrote:
> BearItAll <spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Linux vs. Windows: Which is Most Secure?
>>>
>>
>> I wasn't convinced that he wasn't doing any more than matter of opinion
>> testing here. It could have been done in a much more convincing way I
>> would have thought.
>>
>> Quallity score. Where did the values come from, he didn't really say. Of
>> all of the things the nonLinux world can say about Linux they can't
>> really criticise it on a quality level. It is based on a robust well
>> controlled kernel. Some applications have been poor, but the majority are
>> themselves robust. But this man is only talking about the OS, so why not
>> an A+ across the board, when was the last time anyone here had a problem
>> that was caused by the OS itself?
>>
>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>> | True to UNIX.
>>> | Qualitative score: Windows gets a D+ while Linux gets an A-.
>>
>> Why True To UNIX, UNIX is obviously the bee's knees of OS's as far as
>> stability and quality is concerned. But it is slow moving. That is
>> because it is still based on the strong code footing of an OS, i.e. every
>> single function must be tested with good and bad data, it must behave
>> well, all possible paths in code must be tested. What ever the
>> applications do the OS must not crash.
>
> Where did all this come from?
>
Didn't you read the article.
>>
>> Linux was following that course, I hope it still does, the exceptionally
>> strong kernel suggests that it is still true, but Linux was able to move
>> much more quickly than UNIX in the applications/utilities area.
>
> The applications and utilities are NOT Linux ....
>
I believe I already said that.
>>
>> Still this particular part of his article doesn't make sense, who would
>> suggest a mark of Windows trueness to UNIX? It's just daft.
>>
>>> | "Bummer of a birthmark"
>>> | Qualitative score: Windows gets an F while Linux gets an A.
>>
>> This is probably the truest part, Windows has a bad press, even some of
>> it's own users would like to see MS fall, just to see what happens. But
>> it is also a bullshit mark, because had Vista been a great product it
>> would have flown off the shelves, it would have been adopted quickly by
>> many a business.
>
> Not really. Most are happy with XP. It just works.
>
They were happy with 3.1 95 and 98 too, but the new releases still had a
much greater effect than Vista has had.
>>
>> It wasn't a great product, so the Deer with a target on it's bum, as he
>> said, painted that target on itself.
>>
>>> | User data confidentiality.
>>> | Qualitative score: Windows gets a B- while Linux gets a B+.
>>
>> This encrypted /home that seems to be the latest fashion, it's pants. If
>> users are set up properly it doesn't matter that the user area isn't
>> weighted down with encryption.
>
> This is *so* wrong. Encryption is there to stop people reading ones data
> ifthey have access to it - even root cant.
>
No I disagree, by the way you can prevent root or rather an admin from
seeing confidential data without the use of encription. These days of
mirrors makes my point a bit less valid, in that you are unlikely to need
to take a drive out of a bad server and recover the data. But there are
still many not using a mirror.
So what about the backup, well try it. Take any of your encrypted volumes
put it into another Linux machine and see if you can get access. You might,
if you have done it correctly, but if you can't then you wont be the first.
My main point in that remains though, your server shouldn't be in a place
where encrypting a volume is necessary, therefore nonencrypted gives you
one more avenue of recovery.
>
>>
>> The important part here is not that the data area isn't encrypted, but
>> where servers tend to be placed. Servers are meant to be locked away, in
>> server rooms. But very often these days you visit an office and see a
>> server out on, or under, the desk just like any other computer in the
>> office. That is the only weakness from nonencrypted file systems, that
>> the thief can simply pick up the server and walk out of the door.
>
> Total nonsense.
>
Which part is nonesense? Do you mean servers should be out on the desks in
the office. I see what we are dealing with now, you wouldn't get a job with
me.
>>
>> Put the servers away in a safe place, with limited access, and in Linux
>> there is no risk.
>
> Linux has the risk that any password protected system offering remote
> access has. Not more, not less.
Thats wrong too actually. Linux is less risk then any password protected
system, but not if a thief can pick it up and walk away with it. Your
servers have to be locked away.
It begs the question, where are your company servers? In the reception area
on the coffee table perhaps.
|
|
