View Full Version : Linux Actually Less Secure Than Windows?

02-04-2002, 03:07 PM
Despite the widely-held belief that the open-source operating system Linux is hands-down more secure than Microsoft, statistics gathered by leading security company SecurityFocus on their NTBugTraq site say differently.

According to the most recent statistics, available up to August 2001, Windows 2000 Server had far fewer security vulnerabilities than Red Hat or Mandrake Linux - less than half as many, in fact. Sun's Solaris OS was tied with Win2000.

This information is not a fluke. Looking back over the last five years, Microsoft NT and Win2000 servers had fewer security violations than Linux, despite being used more widely.

02-04-2002, 04:10 PM
Not that I doubt you Rave, but do you have a link or source for this information???


02-04-2002, 04:20 PM

02-04-2002, 04:26 PM
Maybe it's me, but I don't see a link to the article there


02-04-2002, 04:28 PM
I'm just pointing out that Rave triple(at least) posted all the news he's done today. Either way, my feelings on this are a link away.

02-04-2002, 04:34 PM
Any Idea how Windows XP stacks up? I know there was a backdoor problem or something, but with that fixed?

02-07-2002, 02:09 PM

Linux is less secure than Windows? Do we have April 1st?

Were all the big Windows/IE/IIS security problems reported in the last years lies? Isn't it true, that Microsoft didn't close all the security holes till now? Isn't Windows sending encryted data through the internet and Microsoft did not tell the people what kind of information this is? And so on and so on.... (Read Slashdot every day!)

If there are security problems in a Linux software they are always fixed with lightspeed. Often within a few hours. Microsoft mostly needs days, weeks or more to do the same. If they are fixing it....

Oh dear, this was such a good joke...