Ashley Sheridan wrote:
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 22:38 +0000, Nathan Rixham wrote:
Skip Evans wrote:
Nathan Rixham wrote:
yup.. all OS's are equally insecure; each OS is as insecure as the
next; no
one OS is more insecure than any other
Wrong, and there is experimental data to prove it. Read the first URL
I posted that documents the creation of Linux viruses and the
experiments conducted to see how they propagate compared to Windows
viruses.
think about it for a minute; an OS can either be secure (0
vulnerabilities) or insecure (1 or more vulnerabilities); as all OS's
have 1 or more vulnerabilities they are all equally insecure; because
they are all insecure.
the only way to change the balance is to make or find an OS with 0
vunerabilities; thus making it secure and no longer equal.
my worlds boolean.
That's like saying a nuke is as bad as a bullet; they can either kill or
not kill. It's not a black and white issue. You really need to look at
the potential vulnerabilities, and then compare patch frequencies. I
think you'll find Windows is less secure.
Ash
www.ashleysheridan.co.uk
Linux Kernel 2.6.x
161 Secunia advisories
286 Vulnerabilities
Unpatched: 6% (10 of 161 Secunia advisories)
http://secunia.com/advisories/product/2719/
Vista:
51 Secunia advisories
80 Vulnerabilities
Unpatched: 12% (6 of 51 Secunia advisories)
http://secunia.com/advisories/product/13223/
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
