David Chappell

  • September 2020
  • November 2017
  • April 2017
  • October 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • August 2015
  • April 2015
  • December 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003

Opinari

Get the Feed! Subscribe

Comparing Windows and Linux Security  
# Saturday, January 07, 2006
 
A new bulletin from the Computer Emergency Readiness Team (CERT) has once again raised questions about the relative security of Windows and Linux. It provides a list of software vulnerabilities that were identified in 2005, categorized by operating system. To the surprise of some, almost three times as many problems were found in Unix and Linux, which are reported as a single category, as in Windows.

Open source fans have criticized the document, complaining about how vulnerabilities were categorized and other things. From the looks of things, they're right to do so. The bulletin includes information from both CERT and other sources, and the methodology used in compiling it seems to have been informal at best.

Yet I did a similar analysis myself a couple of years ago, described here, using a somewhat cleaner approach. I examined only CERT security advisories, categorizing them into four groups: Windows, commercial Unixes such as Solaris, other commercial software such as Lotus Notes, and open source software. I found that while commercial software in general and Windows in particular had far more CERT advisories in 2001, the picture had changed by 2002. Open source software, which is largely Linux- and Unix-based, had 15 advisories that year while Windows had only 6.

Does this matter? Security problems in Windows are so much more significant than those in Linux because Windows is so much more widely used. And even if Linux were perfectly secure, this wouldn't do much to loosen the grip that Windows has on most desktops today.

There is an important conclusion to draw here, however. Some in the open source world have long argued that, since the code can be examined by anybody, open source software is therefore more secure than proprietary software. But the evidence doesn't back up this claim. Commercial software surely isn't secure enough today, but the assertion that open source software is inherently more secure just isn't supported by the facts. Like it or not, security is a problem for everybody.


0 comments :: Post a Comment

 


Comments:

Post a Comment


<< Home