| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Is Linux as vulnerable as Windows? | |
|
||
| Time: 09:31 EST/14:31 GMT | News Source: TechRepublic | Posted By: Bill Roach | ||
|
Turning the heat up another notch on a long-simmering debate, the Aberdeen Group has published a study comparing the security of Linux/Unix systems with that of the Microsoft Windows family of products. "Contrary to popular misperception, Microsoft does not have the worst track record when it comes to security vulnerabilities. Also contrary to popular wisdom, Unix- and Linux-based systems are just as vulnerable to viruses, Trojan horses, and worms," Aberdeen's report states. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 309 Last | Next |
The time now is
8:10:04 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 6859 (206.156.242.36) at 2/24/2003 4:43:28 PM |
| James, you may have no proof of those statements being true, but I believe them (and have said the same thing for a long time.) |
| #2 By 2332 (65.221.182.3) at 2/24/2003 9:49:34 PM |
|
Regardless of the actual number of security holes as a result of programming mistakes in a piece of software, the design of Linux (or any Unix variant, for that matter) is no more or less prone to viruses/trojans/worms than Windows.
Many argue that since Linux users typically don't run as root most of the time, they are less likely to become infected by, or have damage done by, a virus. This may be true, but it has nothing to do with the OS, and everything to do with the user. I run as a power-user on my machine. This dramatically limits the chance of baddies breaking my stuff. Whenever I run a program I don't trust, I throw it in a directory on my E drive in a folder called "Untrusted Programs". I then run it as a user that only has access to that directory. Nothing more. Lastly, I run up-to-date virus scanning software. Can I claim that Windows is therefore more secure than Linux because I take the precautions I do? No. Of course not. Now, this is all starting to change with .NET. Thanks to things like code access security, the design of Windows will eventually help to make most programming mistakes less likely to break your stuff and let baddies in. It will also protect stupid people from doing stupid things by defaulting to the most secure choice. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 309 Last | Next |
The time now is
8:10:04 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
