Qu'est-ce que c'est que ce d�lire ? En plus, je n'arrive pas � d�terminer quel OS tourne le site securityfocus.com...
Daniel ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Subject: WINDOWS MORE SECURE THAN LINUX? YEP! Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 19:39:46 +0100 WINDOWS MORE SECURE THAN LINUX? YEP! Thanks to David Byrne for this tip: For at least the first 8 months of 2001, open-source poster child Linux was far less secure than Windows, according to the reputable NTBugTraq, which is hosted by SecurityFocus, the leading provider of security information about the Internet. (The company's 2001 statistics are available only through August 2001 for the time being.) According to NTBugTraq, Windows 2000 Server had less than half as many security vulnerabilities as Linux during the reported period. When you break the numbers down by Linux distribution, Win2K had fewer vulnerabilities than RedHat Linux 7.0 or MandrakeSoft Mandrake Linux 7.2, and it tied with UNIX-leader Sun Microsystems Solaris 8.0 and 7.0. A look at the previous 5 years--for which the data is more complete--also shows that each year, Win2K and Windows NT had far fewer security vulnerabilities than Linux, despite the fact that Windows is deployed on a far wider basis than any version of Linux. So once again, folks, you have to ask yourselves: Is Windows really less secure than Linux? Or is this one of those incredible perception issues? For more information and the complete stats, visit the SecurityFocus Web site. I'll check back on this story to see how all of 2001 shapes up. http://securityfocus.com/vulns/stats.shtml ------------------------------------------------------- -- http://www-internal.alphanet.ch/linux-leman/ avant de poser une question. Ouais, pour se d�sabonner aussi.
