RE: NT/2000 vs Unix based Web Servers

From: Trevor Cushen (Trevor.Cushen@sysnet.ie)
Date: 07/10/02 

Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 17:30:06 +0100
From: "Trevor Cushen" <Trevor.Cushen@sysnet.ie>
To: "Mario Behring" <mariobehring@yahoo.com>

Both systems can be made equally secure, so security alone should not be
the driver of your decision.
Functionality is the next question. Unix systems like Sun or Linux
boxes are more reliable according to nearly ever poll done on the
subject. But you don't have the full range of toys to use for fancy web
sites. Sun's Active One or Soft Chili (old name) allows you to use
VBScript ASP pages but not all functions are supported and it runs only
on Intel at the moment. SO if your site is ASP hungry then IIS is for
you. Apache gives you the freedom of almost any hardware platform, but
load balancing is far easier to setup on Windows then any Unix systems.
Personal firewalls are freely available for both Unix and Windows
systems which is a good idea for a web site. And at the end of the day
if IIS is already up and running and you are having no problems why
change. Just secure it if you are worried about the security.
I am sure I have not made your decision any easier with the above but my
feeling would be that Apache on Linux is fastest and most reliable for
the more basic web site, with Java, Perl and/or similar. IIS gives you
more functionality into COM objects and streaming media is easier to
build with Windows systems as more software is available for it and a
better price.
But again if you are up and running why change.

Hope this helps if even a little

Trevor Cushen
Sysnet Ltd

www.sysnet.ie
Tel: +353 1 2983000
Fax: +353 1 2960499

-----Original Message-----
From: Mario Behring [mailto:mariobehring@yahoo.com]
Sent: 08 July 2002 15:25
To: security-basics@securityfocus.com
Subject: NT/2000 vs Unix based Web Servers

Hi list,

I have some websites running on Microsoft IIS on NT/2000 servers and I
have to justify a possible change to Unix servers running Apache or
IPlanet using CORBA. The reason is only one, more secure web servers and
more secure web sites.

Can you guys give me your opinion and some arguments whether should I do
this change or not ?? Costs are not an issue here, please give me
technical and security arguments.

Thanks in advance.

Mario Behring

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free
http://sbc.yahoo.com

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Sample Programs For Securing TCP/IP Conversation Using SSL/TLS
    ... It looks like from the web site that this is purely ... for UNIX and intended to secure things like FTP ect. ...
    (microsoft.public.security)
  • Re: Protecting Source code of a perl script
    ... it will be more secure only if there are crackers. ... > are no bugs or holes that can be found by white-hats. ... > hundred other unix networking and administration tools. ...
    (comp.lang.perl.misc)
  • Re: Free Commodities Are Abused
    ... >>It's just as hard to secure a UNIX box as it is a Windows box, ... ALL software sucks. ... I use Linux for all the reasons you listed above, ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: Unix vs. Windows Security
    ... and b) security will mean Internet security. ... There are some core issues at the heart of the UNIX vs. Windows security ... Neither were ever designed to be secure. ...
    (comp.security.misc)
  • Re: Unix vs. Windows for Security
    ... maintain in a secure environment. ... security problems. ... > Unix is a multiuser operating system, so out of the box it is far from ... > don't have that multiuser shell ability on Windows you have on Unix. ...
    (comp.security.unix)
Quantcast