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.