Windows more secure than Linux?
/v3-uk/news/2001374/windows-secure-linux
04 Feb 2002, James Middleton , V3
Windows suffered fewer security vulnerabilities than Linux last year, according to figures released by vulnerability tracker SecurityFocus.
Although the statistics so far only go up to August 2001, aggregated distributions of the Linux operating system suffered 96 vulnerabilities while Windows NT/2000 suffered only 42.
Breaking the figures down by distribution, Mandrake Linux 7.2 notched up 33 vulnerabilities, Red Hat 7.0 suffered 28, Mandrake 7.1 had 27 and Debian 2.2 had 26.
Windows, on the other hand, shared fourth most vulnerable position with 24, alongside Sun Solaris 7.0 and 8.0.
Although in previous years Windows has suffered the most vulnerabilities when compared to individual distributions, against the Linux aggregate the Microsoft operating system has consistently come out looking better off than its open source brethren.
For five years straight, in fact, Windows has come out less scathed than Linux, with 2000 pinpointed as the most significant year when Linux suffered over 150 vulnerabilities and Windows fell just short of 100.
But when looking at the bigger picture, the number of vulnerabilities discovered has rocketed since the start of last year and now peaks 150 new security discoveries a month, revealing a lot of bug-hunting activity poking holes in the security of operating systems in general.
Do you agree?
fixes
But Linux distros generally fix their vulnerabilities quickly after discovery, while Windows is often very slow at patching their security holes. Besides: just compare the numbers on SEVERE security holes on both operating systems and the subsequent numbers of viri and worms exploiting those holes. Windows more secure? In your dreams....
Posted by richard, 24 Jun 2005
Not Exactly
Previous comment: "Linux distros generally fix their vulnerabilities quickly after discovery" -> Not exactly
Microsoft demonstrated the lowest average between disclosure and release of a fix of all the other platforms evaluated in many 3rd party tests
All platforms contain security vulnerabilities, what matters is how quickly maintainers fix them once dicoverers find and report them.
Microsoft used to group related security fixes together weekly and producing secuiry updates monthly (With Exception for emergencies).
Posted by Taimour, 05 Sep 2006
VIRUSES
This article didn't take into account that viruses needn't always take advantage of exploits to reproduce -- how many linux viruses have you heard of?
Posted by Adam, 07 Nov 2007
Securtiy!! And M$?
Can someone open up and show to the public the window$ $ource code? May be amateurs will point out 1000+. And even babies get frustrated while using windows Vista. On the other hand, viruses, worms, trojans are scarcely heard of in linux. Even if they are, they dont attack the linux user. Even IF THEY ATTACK THE USER, ONE DOESN'T NEED TO CLEAN INSTALL AGAIN!
Sorry: thats how an M$ user would spell security if he is asked to.
Posted by Sriram, 17 Feb 2008
This article is biased
"Windows suffered fewer security vulnerabilities than Linux last year, according to figures released by vulnerability tracker SecurityFocus.
Although the statistics so far only go up to August 2001, aggregated distributions of the Linux operating system suffered 96 vulnerabilities while Windows NT/2000 suffered only 42.
Breaking the figures down by distribution, Mandrake Linux 7.2 notched up 33 vulnerabilities, Red Hat 7.0 suffered 28, Mandrake 7.1 had 27 and Debian 2.2 had 26."
Why doesn't the article headline read "Windows has more vulnerabilities than every Linux distro", its pathetically inaccurate to state that Microsoft is better because if you add up the faults of a few competitors they come to more than windows. No mention of whether the problems repeated across distro's. If these mathematical slights of hand are going to be played how about taking all of the different windows versions into account and altering the figure so if a vulnerability is apparent on several versions of windows the number is increased to reflect this. This is basically the same as looking at the linux distro's in isolation, as there is a possibility that many vulnerabilities will have been common to several distro's and there is not enough information to make this claim, and enough to claim the contrary is true
Posted by Vivian, 10 Jun 2008