RE: bill gates' claim about security vulnerabilities per LOC inUnix versus Windows
From: Cobus Neethling (cobus_at_cknet.co.za)
Date: 11/05/03
- Previous message: Ryan Reilly: "Re: Buffer Overflow"
- In reply to: gr00vy: "RE: bill gates' claim about security vulnerabilities per LOC in Unix versus Windows"
- Next in thread: Alexandre Sieira: "RE: bill gates' claim about security vulnerabilities per LOC inUnix versus Windows"
- Reply: Alexandre Sieira: "RE: bill gates' claim about security vulnerabilities per LOC inUnix versus Windows"
- Reply: Alexandre Sieira: "RE: bill gates' claim about security vulnerabilities per LOC inUnix versus Windows"
- Reply: Barry Fitzgerald: "Re: bill gates' claim about security vulnerabilities per LOC inUnix versus Windows"
- Reply: L. Adrian Griffis: "RE: bill gates' claim about security vulnerabilities per LOC inUnix versus Windows"
- Maybe reply: Michael Howard: "RE: bill gates' claim about security vulnerabilities per LOC inUnix versus Windows"
- Reply: Kurt Seifried: "Re: bill gates' claim about security vulnerabilities per LOC inUnix versus Windows"
- Reply: Warwick Molloy: "Re: bill gates' claim about security vulnerabilities per LOC inUnix versus Windows"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
To: <secprog@securityfocus.com> Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 08:41:27 +0200
In stead of raising my own oppinion I am quoting a news item from
viruslist.com run by Kaspersky Labs. You can find the article online at
http://www.viruslist.com/eng/index.html?tnews=1008&id=56937
Here goes...
VirusList.com Virus Alerts & Virus News. Thursday, October 03, 2002
******************************************************************
1. Linux Gets A Reality Check
2. How to subscribe/unsubscribe
****
1. Linux Gets A Reality Check
It may not be a surprise that as Linux diligently plods forward with a 30%
annual increase in usage it is being targeted more and more by hackers,
however, what may be a surprise is that Linux is proving to be at least as
vulnerable as Windows products. While Linux has long basked in its
reputation as a secure and stable platform, Microsoft's Windows is famously
maligned for its bugs (what Microsoft terms "issues") and security
vulnerabilities. It now appears that more than a few, especially virtually
every proponent of the Linux open source revolution, may owe an apology to
the Redmond, Washington software "monster", though presumably Bill Gates and
his team are not holding their collective breath. Seemingly Microsoft's
biggest crime was its popularity.
Attacks:
MI2G reports attacks on Linux is on the rise -
5,736 attacks in the whole of 2001, but the first half of 2002 already shows
7,630. While attacks on Windows systems running Microsoft's IIS Web server
fell by 20 percent, from 11,828 during the first six months of 2001 to 9,404
over the same period this year. These figures do not include viruses and
worms.
Bugs and Vulnerabilities:
The firm, Internet Security Systems last year, 2001, identified 149 bugs in
Microsoft software and a surprising 309 for Linux. This year, 2002,
continues this trend with a whopping 485 bugs attributed to Linux and a more
sober, but still "way-too-high" 202 for Microsoft. More recent Microsoft
offerings, such as Windows XP are indeed harder to crack than previous
Windows products and may also offer a partial reason why Linux is now more
often a target.
Notes:
XP may indeed be more secure than older Windows products, however, it should
be noted that many networks run older Windows versions as well, thus
mitigating the security improvement brought by XP.
Another notable trend is the emergence of hybrid viruses that attack
multiple platforms. One such example is Nimda, which, besides its preferred
victim Windows, also managed to infect AS/400 and Solaris machines.
Statistics and trends aside, the most important thing is that users follow a
sound security policy and regularly update anti-virus and other security
software.
**
2. How to subscribe/unsubscribe
If you would like to subscribe to other news blocks or to unsubscribe from
this news block, you can do so by visiting
http://www.viruslist.com/eng/maillist.html
If you experience any problems with this procedure, please contact us at:
news@kaspersky.com
****
Best of Luck,
Kaspersky Lab News Agent
-----
10 Geroyev Panfilovtcev St., Moscow, 123363, Russia
Telephone./Facsimile: +7 (095) 948 43 31
WWW: http://www.kaspersky.com, http://www.viruslist.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.kasperskylab.ru
E-mail: info@avp.ru
Cobus Neethling
Web Developer
CKNet Internet Services (PTY) LTD
Tel: +27 11 314 0171
- Previous message: Ryan Reilly: "Re: Buffer Overflow"
- In reply to: gr00vy: "RE: bill gates' claim about security vulnerabilities per LOC in Unix versus Windows"
- Next in thread: Alexandre Sieira: "RE: bill gates' claim about security vulnerabilities per LOC inUnix versus Windows"
- Reply: Alexandre Sieira: "RE: bill gates' claim about security vulnerabilities per LOC inUnix versus Windows"
- Reply: Alexandre Sieira: "RE: bill gates' claim about security vulnerabilities per LOC inUnix versus Windows"
- Reply: Barry Fitzgerald: "Re: bill gates' claim about security vulnerabilities per LOC inUnix versus Windows"
- Reply: L. Adrian Griffis: "RE: bill gates' claim about security vulnerabilities per LOC inUnix versus Windows"
- Maybe reply: Michael Howard: "RE: bill gates' claim about security vulnerabilities per LOC inUnix versus Windows"
- Reply: Kurt Seifried: "Re: bill gates' claim about security vulnerabilities per LOC inUnix versus Windows"
- Reply: Warwick Molloy: "Re: bill gates' claim about security vulnerabilities per LOC inUnix versus Windows"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
|