On Monday 18 Aug 2008 18:11, Surya Pratap wrote: > Erach wrote: > > > JTD replied whose reply I intepret as follows that Windows (am I > > correct ---- does not have a secure kernel like UNIX)---- then > > how is Windows security done. > > Actually JTD's answer meant that the kernel and user space memory > allocation are well defined in linux and not so much in windows > this means that user run programs are less likely to affect a > system's security in linux than it is in windows (correct me if I > am wrong)
Partly right. But the windows kernel itself is riddled with holes some diliberate some due to various backward compatibility issues. That apart security by obscurity is a known evil security practice. therefore not having the source available for scrutiny as well as patching is a strict NO for anything concerned with security. > > > Now, for all over Mumbai/INDIA, WIFI can we say that we have to > > have a secure kernel ---- for banks can one advocate a "develop > > new applications / enhancements over LINUX development tool with > > Windows running on top of LINUX using the emulator VIRTUALBOX > > which is open source). Virtulization does not solve the security issue. Virtualization merely provides the ability to better utilise hardware and manpower. -- Rgds JTD -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
