Richard Cotrina wrote:
heise.de questioned the credibility of the study. On the other hand they did a security surveyPerhaps this is an old news, but it's interesting to post it to the list.
A recent study made by MI2G, an UK company focused in data risk security, shows that *BSD and MacOS X were the less breached OS in a sample of more that 200K computers permanently connected to the internet.
http://mi2g.net/cgi/mi2g/frameset.php?pageid=http%3A//mi2g.net/cgi/mi2g/press/021104.php
around december 2003/january 2004, and IIRC, their results were *pretty* similar to what this
study shows.
I do believe, the heise-study also mentioned that BSD-systems were not only rarely attacked because
of being so rare, but that the rate of successful attacks against BSD-based system was lower than
with, say Linux and Windows.
<speculation>
I for one do believe that Linux gets aways so badly not because Linux inherently insecure or "bad",
but because many Linux-machines do not - that's my impression at least - receive the degree of
administrative attention they would need. BSD - in my impression - attracts more experienced
users/administrators than Linux, having become rather "mainstream".
If you looked at the attacked Linux systems in more detail, I also assume you'd find the same to
be true for Red Hat/Suse vs. Debian systems.
I do believe that the same goes for windows - since it's so easy to handle, superficially, it will
tend to be operated by less experienced admins in general. Just remember that all the NT-worms
only got so successful because there uncounted unpatched systems out there...
</speculation>
Kind regards, Benjamin _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
