On Feb 4, 8:56 am, Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Microsoft's Security Claims Don't Stand Up to Scrutiny
[snip Roy's excellent collection of links showing the flaws of
Microsoft's security claims).
Fundamentally, the bottom line with security is "Will I be attacked".
With Windows XP, as installed, you have a 100% chance of being
attacked within 10 minutes.
With Vista, that might extend to 20 minutes.
With Linux - you have a 1% chance of being successfully hacked within
2 years.
The most successful virus to attack Linux was the Lion virus, which
"got" 8 thousand out of 8 million Linux servers. Most of these
servers were improperly configured and mismanaged.
The second issue, is ease of back-up and recovery.
With Linux, you can use CPIO or Tar to copy all of the files in a
partition, even while the operating system is running, and the
recovery process of copying the partition back, will get you back to
your original configuration when you reboot.
With Windows, you can't back up files that are open, this includes
most of the libraries, most applications, and most of the logging
data. As a result, you either have to use Linux partition copy cpio,
using a Live-CD, or you have to use special back-up software, and hope
that you have the backup media and application CD available when you
need to recover.
But Microsoft "wins" because they have REPORTED fewer fixed bugs.
Yet Roy's posts show that many bugs are unreported. Bugs that haven't
been fixed aren't reported, and many of the bugs in Linux are
"theoretical" - you can't even duplicate them, but get fixed anyway,
while Microsoft often doesn't report a fix until millions of users
have been successfully hacked.
|
|
