On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 4:51 PM, Derek Atkins <warl...@mit.edu> wrote:
> Given a standard-configuration fully-updated Windows box and compare it > to a standard-configuration fully-updated Linux box.. The windows > machine has significantly more holes in it during standard use. > > That is false assumption which only makes one *feel* more secure. I would give you that generally windows machines have more holes that allow someone to *crash* the machine, however most *nix exploits which are remote vulnerabilities will end up easily giving you a shell. Additionally, as time goes on, I've found that older installations of a given distributions will pretty close to 100% get compromised if left unattended. Linux is NOT more secure then Windows. People RUNNING Linux are *generally* more security conscious then a person running Windows. -- -- Thomas
_______________________________________________ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
