There is little to choose between Microsoft and Linux in terms of operating system security, according to experts, but misleading figures and surveys are muddying the waters for IT managers evaluating the platforms.
However, he suggested that the mass of statistics put out by both sides was obfuscating the issue.
"A couple of years ago Linux was without doubt more secure than Windows, but things have changed a lot," said Titterington.
"My hunch would be that Linux still has the edge but it's difficult to tell with all this misleading information being pumped out.
"Just doing a head count of vulnerabilities is useless, for example, if you're not grading the seriousness of the vulnerabilities."
He added that Microsoft had made real progress on security in the past two years, but that the increasing number of Linux enthusiasts coming into the market would help the open source alternative in the long run.
John Engates, chief technology officer at managed hosting company Rackspace, which offers both Linux and Windows hosted servers, said: "If you think about where you get Linux talent it's in the younger generation.
"Linux has a slight advantage in that computer science students are learning it, but Microsoft has made life easier for non-techies, particularly with its improved patches."
Engates added that his company manages 13,000 servers, roughly half of which are open source and half Microsoft. He claims to see little difference between the security on either platform.
And, yep, it'll run Android rather than RiscOS
US engineering giant's cost-cutting outsourcing plan is on the rocks, according to insiders
HP Envy X2 laptop only affordable if you've got loadsamoney
Counterfeit code-signing certificates enabling hackers to hide malware being sold by cyber criminals
Certificates can be used as part of layered obfuscation to evade detection by anti-virus software