I agree that careless (or ignorant) security administration can make any box open to hackers, no matter how good the provisions made available in the OS. But it's not the only factor. Two guys, one on a system Z and one on a Windows box, exerting about equal care for their security, will have vastly different outcomes, statistically speaking. Or 500 guys and 500 guys on a thousand systems, if you prefer.
--- Bob Bridges, [email protected], cell 336 382-7313 /* "Separation [of church and state]" means pretending you're not a Christian during office hours. -Joseph Sobran */ -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> On Behalf Of zMan Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2022 00:16 Sorry, I find this "survey" meaningless as reported. Figure 1 says it's showing downtime, then the text says it's a percentage of systems that have reported a data breach. Which is it? I'd be willing to believe this if it had all x86 servers grouped together. I don't believe there's something that makes the x86 machines listed magically resistant to attacks. Z, Itanium (Superdome), Power -- sure: not that they're necessarily inherently more resistant (the OS may be, but bits is bits) but they're less common so there are fewer folks bothering to attack them. I'm 100% sure that the good ratings for high-end servers have more to do with who buys them than the servers themselves. Sort of like saying "Supercars have better paint finish after several years than low-end cars" -- right, because they're bought by folks who can afford to take care of them. People who buy white-box servers are generally not high-end shops, aren't investing in the things that make them more secure. That also explains the alleged faster detection. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
