[SC.LUG] Linux vs. Windows Viruses

[Dr A V Le Blanc]

On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 01:33:25PM +0100, Rick [Kitty5] wrote:
> Open source isn't a prerequisite of security, in MS's case closed source is
> most definitely more secure!

This is false.  The MS code is full of holes, and not even hiding the
source code has prevented people from finding them.

> Linux also suffers from the security as an afterthought problem,

As I admitted in my last note.  But Microsoft have a worse problem.
The Linux security model is fairly consistent but too weak.
The Microsoft security model is even weaker and not consistent.

> MS have the advantage in that administrators expect Windows to be insecure,
> and if they have any sense, go the extra mile to protect their boxes. OTOH
> people assume Linux is more secure, when in reality the out-of-the box
> config can sometimes be anything but.

MS have the disadvantage that their systems are in worse shape from
the outset.  With the worst possible administrators all systems are
insecure.  With the best possible administrators, MS systems are
less secure than Linux systems.

     -- Owen
     LeBlanc at mcc.ac.uk