iceman2654
Programmer
sleipnir214 i think right. That is what I meant...
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations strongm on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Linux not appropriate for critical security applications
- Thread starter screwloose
- Start date
- Status
Well Mr Screwloose,..........Please dont get me wrong .Ive been securing Windows platforms for the last seven years and Im not going to sit here and crack Microsoft,because thier software is good for what it is used for .What I believe the open source community has always tryed to convey to the masses is that Linux does have its place in the IT world just as our friends at microsoft have thiers.But ,when it does come to Security issuse for meduim to Large corp in my opion "yes",you must give a Tip of the Hat to the open source movement.Now I probabley know what you are saying,here we go again.But,in my opion,and just me ,I really dont like the fact that Linux is getting this publiciity,for the simple fact that the more people start hearing this the more questions and answers they will have .And here is where I make my point,the only reason that Linux does have an edge in the Security field right now is Because the average person does not have a great Deal of knowledge about the structure of the Linux O/S,unlike Microsoft which has 95% of the market today in the deask top market.Do I believe that Linux would have the same problems as microsoft if it were as popular,DAMB RIGHT ,it would .The point being Sir ,as long as you stand on top of the Hill shouting your Dominince the longer and harder poeple will Flouge you .Do I believe Linux belongs in Tanks and Airplanes "No",but I will say the folks over at the open Source Community make a Fine Damb Server In APache ,which ,if I might add ,still holds over 60% of the market .
And of course Apache is far from immune from security holes and leaks.
They have 60%+ of the market, yet 90%+ of all corrupted web server run Apache...
Remember that most users will use their OS out of the box. Unless you include automated update features so the OS will keep itself updated with security updates from a trusted source those people will never install such updates because they simply don't keep track of what's going on out there and wouldn't understand it if they did catch something.
Out of the box, Windows (certainly the current releases) are more secure than Linux.
It's only after long tweaking and playing around with obscure configuration files, possibly several kernel compiles, etc. etc. that that Linux box exceeds the security of the Windows installation.
Most users will never do that, instead resting in bliss at the "Linux is secure" chant until they're unpleasantly surprised when one morning their login password no longer works, the root password has been changed, and the CD and diskdrives are inaccessible.
They have 60%+ of the market, yet 90%+ of all corrupted web server run Apache...
Remember that most users will use their OS out of the box. Unless you include automated update features so the OS will keep itself updated with security updates from a trusted source those people will never install such updates because they simply don't keep track of what's going on out there and wouldn't understand it if they did catch something.
Out of the box, Windows (certainly the current releases) are more secure than Linux.
It's only after long tweaking and playing around with obscure configuration files, possibly several kernel compiles, etc. etc. that that Linux box exceeds the security of the Windows installation.
Most users will never do that, instead resting in bliss at the "Linux is secure" chant until they're unpleasantly surprised when one morning their login password no longer works, the root password has been changed, and the CD and diskdrives are inaccessible.
sleipnir214
Programmer
jwenting:
I'd love to see the data backing up your assertion.
Want the best answers? Ask the best questions!
TANSTAAFL!!
I'd love to see the data backing up your assertion.
Want the best answers? Ask the best questions!
TANSTAAFL!!
paleogryph
MIS
What is obvious to me from reading the posts in this discussion is that most of the open source slammers are either too lazy to learn how to "tweak(ing) and play(ing) around with obscure configuration files" or too comfortable (addicted) to their Start Windows .wav.
Saying windows is more secure out of the box than any open source distro is like saying that Hummers have the best reliability rating.
If you have been paying attention, the BIG PROBLEM the last few years is that windows is wide open out of the box, with way too many ports, services, buffer overruns and preview pane liabilities.
The usual problem with open source distros for newbies is how to get connected at all, not the other way around. Now both camps are starting to go towards each other, Windows getting more secure, open source getting more user friendly.
>Think for yourself<
...or someone else will do it for you.
Saying windows is more secure out of the box than any open source distro is like saying that Hummers have the best reliability rating.
If you have been paying attention, the BIG PROBLEM the last few years is that windows is wide open out of the box, with way too many ports, services, buffer overruns and preview pane liabilities.
The usual problem with open source distros for newbies is how to get connected at all, not the other way around. Now both camps are starting to go towards each other, Windows getting more secure, open source getting more user friendly.
>Think for yourself<
...or someone else will do it for you.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question