Re: Unix vs. Windows for Security

From: buzzbomb (buzzbomb@cut-this.ntlworld.cut-this.com)
Date: 02/21/02 

From: "buzzbomb" <buzzbomb@cut-this.ntlworld.cut-this.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 06:47:28 -0000

Bottom line....

Both OS's require a degree on intelligence and expertise to setup and
maintain in a secure environment. Over the years BOTH have demonstrated
securiity weaknesses.

However, there is a difference in philosophy. MS have explicitly written
usability features into their products which have actively contributed to
security problems (e.g. email virues, Melissa, Love Bug et al).

B.

"Sunadmin" <sunadmin@fuse.net> wrote in message
news:u70u5gt4at3r32@corp.supernews.com...
> Unix is a multiuser operating system, so out of the box it is far from
> secure.
> Unix was designed to allow multiple people and groups to run multiple
> programs from the same machine within different shells on the system.
> So Unix by default comes with a lot of services enabled, tftp, ftp,
telnet,
> sendmail just to name a few.
>
> Windows comes with nothing basically. MS has gotten a lot better with
Win2k
> offering most services now as standards like Unix always has. You still
> don't have that multiuser shell ability on Windows you have on Unix. So
> unless you take the proper steps to secure Unix it will be less secure
then
> Windows by default. Only because Windows doesn't really have an offering
in
> the way of multiuser abilities out of the box. You have to buy seperate
> packages and add ons to make it a functional peice of crap:-) ( no bias
> here )...
>
> If you do take the proper precautions using products like Secure shell,
> tripwire, logchecker, Kerberos etc.. Unix far surpasses Windows security
> wise.
>
> Jeremy
> Sunadmin@fuse.net
>
>
> "Colin" <geoffkeston@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:964e46c2.0202090916.4efa0d4f@posting.google.com...
> > I would like your opinion on the merits/faults of Unix compared to
> > Windows in respect to security. What are the specific issues that
> > differentiate them? Which is the better overall?
> >
> > Thanks.
> > Colin
>
>

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Myth of the secure Mac
    ... OEM Windows XP Home goes for a bit under $100. ... >> secure than Home. ... Though this really has nothing to do with security. ... Microsoft counts on third-party developers to provide more ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: The Myth of the secure Mac
    ... >>> secure than Home. ... Though this really has nothing to do with security. ... >>> I, on the other hand, was speaking about overall Windows security, not ... I do believe that Microsoft could adjust their prices for the ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Any Way to Run Windows 2000 From Read-Only CD?
    ... Your point regarding infecting the computer during runtime when the disk is ... Now, regarding UNIX versus Windows, I try to have a balanced view. ... administrator can isolate those and secure them. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.security)
  • Re: Windows Is Now More Secure Than Linux
    ... >OpenSSL is compiled into just about every 'secure' application in the Unix ... You know, a lot of people see me as a "Windows defender", mainly because I pop ... The solution, if there is one, to security problems, is to choose a supplier ...
    (comp.security.misc)
  • RE: [inbox] Re: [Full-Disclosure] RE: Linux (in)security
    ... When you have inherently more secure code in OS's ... "Windows" includes all the applications that come with Windows, ... Which is why they release security advisories for things like kernel ... This is why wu-ftpd keeps having new vulns discovered every year, ...
    (Full-Disclosure)