Language Selection

English French German Italian Portuguese Spanish

Linux lags Windows in new security report

Filed under
Linux
Microsoft
Security

A report released today indicates Windows Server 2003 may actually be more secure than its most popular Linux competitor when it comes to vulnerabilities and the time it takes to patch them.

"The fact that Security Innovations [which produced the paper] retained 'editorial control' doesn't help; if Microsoft is paying the bills, there can be all sorts of nonverbal pressure behind the scenes. It isn't like it was 'co-funded' by both Microsoft and Red Hat," said Michael D. "Mick" Bauer, senior editor of Linux Journal and director of value-subtracted services for Wiremonkeys.org.

He also questioned the narrow focus. "This study appears to be more concerned with vulnerability counts and patch-release cycles than in actual security or securability. Certainly, if Microsoft has reduced the amounts of bugs in [its] software and gotten faster at patching bugs, that's great. But the bug-patch rat race is only one part of a much more complicated security picture, and the way I see it, Linux still has compelling advantages from a security standpoint."

Such a reaction was anticipated by authors Richard Ford, Herbert H. Thompson and Fabien Casteran. They intentionally ignored threat profiles in favor of inherent vulnerabilities in Windows Server 2003 and two versions of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3.0. The goal, they said, is to provide a security metric for IT professionals to apply to their own software shopping.

"I don't think people should make adoption decisions purely based on the results, but I think it does at the very least give decision makers and diehards on either side, or even the neutral people, a chance to look beyond hype and speculation and look at hard numbers," said Thompson, director of research at Melbourne, Fla.-based Security Innovation Inc., the application security provider that produced the report.

Thompson denies Microsoft's money influenced results but admits that's a source of contention for a lot of people. "We've gotten funding from Microsoft and as a result of that people have come back and said this automatically must not be relevant and fair and balanced. That's one reason our mission has been to be completely transparent in the methodology."

Full Story.

More in Tux Machines

Google and ODF

  • Fuzz about Google supporting odf
    First of all because the support comes way too late. Secondly because its not even close to be good. Back several years ago Google was politically supporting the process of getting odf approved as an open standard but they never really bothered. The business was clearly to keep both odf and ooxml/docx out of their products and keep their own proprietary document format. Implementing good and solid interoperability is actually not difficult but it is a huge task. Google could have done this three or four years ago if they wanted to. But they didn't. Both proprietary software vendors has been busy making interoperability difficult while the providers of true open standards has been improving interoperability month by month.
  • Google Promises Better Compatibility with Open Source Documents
    Google (GOOG) may soon be taking open OpenDocumentFormat (ODF), the native file format in virtually all modern open source word processors, like LibreOffice and OpenOffice, more seriously. That's according to a statement from Google's open source chief speaking about the future of the company's cloud-based app suite.

Microsoft tells J.S. Joust devs their game is “NOT possible” on Windows

PlayStation Move-enabled game only on Mac and Linux for now, will be open sourced. Read more

Fedora 21

Fedora 21 is out and I’ve been able to spend some time with it. The last version of Fedora I looked at was more than two years ago, so there have been quite a few changes since then. The new version of Fedora comes in three basic options: Fedora Cloud, Fedora Server and Fedora Workstation. Read more