On Jun 13, 9:33 am, "Mike" <i...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
> >> We all know why that is. Cos no one uses it
>
> > Have you read the article? It does not say this at all.
>
> You're getting to the point that Microsoft has more flaws etc. than Linux.
> Many hackers/crackers/script kiddies go for the big companies and the
> mainstream software.
>
> You don't see many hackers/crackers/script kiddies who try to crack Linux do
> you?
>
> --
> Mike
> Scottish....and proud of it
The argument that Windows is a bigger target and so attracts most of
the attacks is correct as far as it goes, but it is used by Microsoft
apologists to deflect attention from the fact that Windows is
fundamentally insecure. If Linux had a bigger market share it would
be subject to a larger number of attacks than it is now, but it would
never present the security headaches that are the norm in the Windows
world.
The argument made in the article, that OSS is fundamentally more
secure than proprietary software, is only part of the story.
Security was not a design consideration in Windows at the beginning,
unlike Unix and Linux. We all know that Bill Gates underestimated the
importance of the internet, and security played no role in the
original design decisions. After nearly shutting down the internet
from Windows malware and getting a lot of bad PR, Microsoft has been
paying a lot of attention to security (the last 5 years or so). But
those security efforts are bandaged on top of a lot of fundamentally
poor design decisions that can only partly be remedied. Vista is
supposed to be more secure, and maybe it is, but it also required a
massive code rewrite, which of course introduces its own set of new
bugs and design flaws. Meanwhile Linux keeps advancing in a modular
fashion.
What has been a design consideration in Windows from the beginning has
been things like ease of use (give all users administrative
privileges, click to execute, etc), and screwing the competition (IE
is an integral part of the OS and cannot be separated from it), etc
etc, and many of these have run counter to good security practice.
Now that Microsoft has the security religion, many of these earlier
decisions are impossible to reverse, and, in any case, using the OS to
screw the competition is still a practice. In Linux, on the other
hand, design decisions are usually made for technical reasons, not
commercial ones. That doesn't mean that there are no flaws in Linux,
but it is a better starting point from a technical standpoint, which
includes security.
|
|
