The debate over which Operating System is the most secure is an age-old debate, which is filled with a vigor and passion similar to those debating their religious beliefs. However, in the end it all boils down to reliable management, adherence to policies and procedures and proper use.

In the article "Linux vs. Windows Viruses" by Scott Granneman, his bias is very clear - Scott feels that "Linux is more secure, end of story!" That unwritten (although easily discernable) statement is unsupportable though, given the technical inaccuracies and incorrect statements the article puts forth. I would like to take the opportunity to correct some of his facts . . . err assertions.

Linux as a desktop system faces the exact same issues of worms and viruses, social engineering and poor design as any system, Microsoft included. In fact, I would say that the vast complexity of current Linux distributions contribute more to the insecurity of an average desktop user than does the well-defined API of Windows. There may not have been as many email viruses that attacked Linux, but let's look at worms and targeted attacks instead. To quote Peter S. Tippett in a recent discussion about this (hope you don't mind Peter), "there have been more detected worms and attacks on Linux last year than on Windows - by a factor of more than 2 or 3!" Now that's an indisputable fact that should pour some water on Scott Granneman's fire.