Language Selection

English French German Italian Portuguese Spanish

Microsoft vs Linux Reports - Sheer Waste Of Time?

Filed under
Linux
Microsoft

The report released by Security Innovation Inc., an application security company, comparing Windows Server 2003 security with Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3 Enterprise Server (RHEL3ES) is very interesting in its own right. Just skimming through the report reveals a few discrepancies that question its credibility.

The main page briefing about the paper states:
"Results of Independent Research Project that Microsoft Windows Server 2003 has Fewer Security Flaws than Multiple Configurations of a Compatible Linux Server." While the researchers are clearly mentioning the Microsoft product the use the more generic term "Linux". Why generalize? It is hard to believe that these PhDs do not understand the relevance of this statement. Why couldn't they just be direct and mentioned "RHEL3ES?"

In the report:
"Aside from beliefs over the relative "security" of the closed versus Open Source development paradigms, another important contributing factor is that Microsoft develops and releases all the components in their Web server stack. This allows Microsoft more control over release cycles and vulnerability disclosures than the distributed development method."

This brings up a couple of interesting points. Firstly, according to them implementing multiple components (software) in an enterprise makes the overall system more vulnerable. Well, so we must expect enterprises to immediately take actions to ensure that ALL their ERP, SCM, CRM, and, of course, Web Servers are from a single vendor. Though we hate to repeat this but have they ever heard of something called "vendor lock-in".

Secondly, the report states that Microsoft has control over release cycles AND VULNERABILITY DISCLOSURES. Do they intend to say that the "days of risk" has been significantly affected by the fact that the vendor has control as to when the vulnerability will be disclosed?

A little later comes:
"Another factor which helps Microsoft in terms of average days of risk is that Microsoft strongly encourages a "responsible disclosure" policy - that is, the company attempts to carefully coordinate vulnerability announcement with fix announcement and actively build relationships with new security researchers."

It does seem that the report is trying to explain that the companies buying the Microsoft products are supposed to work closely with Microsoft to ensure that the vulnerability announcement and fix announcements are as close as possible to ensure that the "days of risk" are kept to a minimum. We sincerely hope that we got this one wrong.

Though a lot more can be analyzed in the report, it does appear that "independent" research seems to have been done (or should we say, written) by people who think that Enterprise IT Heads are a bunch of fools who have all the time on earth to read through tones of pages of deceptive analysis.

Source.

More in Tux Machines

Today in Techrights

Linux 4.7.5

I'm announcing the release of the 4.7.5 kernel. All users of the 4.7 kernel series must upgrade. The updated 4.7.y git tree can be found at: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git linux-4.7.y and can be browsed at the normal kernel.org git web browser: http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-st... Read more Also: Linux 4.4.22

Android Leftovers

Security News

  • Friday's security updates
  • Impending cumulative updates unnerve Windows patch experts
    Microsoft's decision to force Windows 10's patch and maintenance model on customers running the older-but-more-popular Windows 7 has patch experts nervous. "Bottom line, everyone is holding their breath, hoping for the best, expecting the worst," said Susan Bradley in an email. Bradley is well known in Windows circles for her expertise on Microsoft's patching processes: She writes on the topic for the Windows Secrets newsletter and moderates the PatchMangement.org mailing list, where business IT administrators discuss update tradecraft.
  • Yahoo is sued for gross negligence over huge hacking
    Yahoo Inc (YHOO.O) was sued on Friday by a user who accused it of gross negligence over a massive 2014 hacking in which information was stolen from at least 500 million accounts. The lawsuit was filed in the federal court in San Jose, California, one day after Yahoo disclosed the hacking, unprecedented in size, by what it believed was a "state-sponsored actor." Ronald Schwartz, a New York resident, sued on behalf of all Yahoo users in the United States whose personal information was compromised. The lawsuit seeks class-action status and unspecified damages. A Yahoo spokeswoman said the Sunnyvale, California-based company does not discuss pending litigation.
  • Yahoo faces questions after hack of half a billion accounts
    Yahoo’s admission that the personal data of half a billion users has been stolen by “state-sponsored” hackers leaves pressing questions unanswered, according to security researchers. Details, including names, email addresses, phone numbers and security questions were taken from the company’s network in late 2014. Passwords were also taken, but in a “hashed” form, which prevents them from being immediately re-used, and the company believes that financial information held with it remains safe.