Sign up for a new account or log in here:
also @ TechSpot: Metro: Last Light Performance, Benchmarked
Home › News › Industry News
Windows beats UNIX on vulnerabilities
In fact, Linux and UNIX experienced more than three times as many reported security vulnerabilities than Windows. That’s the word from US Computer Emergency Readiness Team (CERT), and their annual year-end security index. Last year, Windows experienced 812 reported operating system vulnerabilities. Linux and UNIX, however, experienced 2,328.
CERT found more than 500 multiple vendor vulnerabilities in Linux and Unix spanning old favourites such as denial of service and buffer overflows, while CERT recorded 88 Windows-specific holes and 44 in Internet Explorer (IE).
Still, keep expecting Windows problems to hit the headlines more than UNIX related ones – attacks on the Microsoft OS generate much more concern among the public and tend to be made out to be more terrible.
User Comments: 37
Got something to say? Post a comment-
And this is some surpise????
-
Well, to some I guess. Some people still think that Linux is so secure that you don't need to worry about anything. Now that hackers or whatever you want to call them know that alot of big businesses and such are moving to Linux, the viruses and exploits will increase, perhaps dramatically. It's still really a surprise to me that Linux and Unix have had more exploits than Windows tough, it's hard to believe.
-
Even though there may be more overall instances of vulnerabilities, Linux is still more securable than Windows if implemented and maintained properly. [url]http://www.ameinfo.com/75175.html[/url]
-
Linux IS more secure. As long as you have a router you DONT have to worry about anything! I hope you realize that they aren't talking about a specific Linux OS, there are hundreds. And there are about 15 really popular ones that are most used, with windows almost everyone is using xp. Think about it.@CrossFire851. Yes... it isn't true. Windows is the winner of insecurity.Keep in mind though, that my main computers are running on a Windows OS. I run all my servers on Linux.
-
Is it really a surprise, though? Microsoft is only a scapegoat because whenever there's security flaw it affects more people than any other systems out there. This means more people will whine about it and exaggerate the problem. I'm not saying Microsoft is perfectly safe, but I don't see how the die-hard Linux or Unix people can reject Microsoft so easily yet defends the former. This article hits it dead on, and glad it's there to raise another perspective to look at this situation.
-
@iluvnug. Exactly.But the same goes for Windows, if the proper security measures are taken it can be quite a safe OS as well.
-
The number of vulnerabilities is irrelevant.A meaningful security measure is how much productivity was lost last year due to windows vulnerabilities versus how much was lost to unix insecurities ?Another is how much fraud was perpetrated due to each ?I expect that from a productivity front, windows accounts for 99% of it.As for fraud, probably 95%, but that depends if you count phishing / keyloggers / spyware. Not that this data is meaningfully captured, most companies do not report security breaches.Both windows and unix have their place, both are very useful, I could almost do without windows if it were not for specific applications I need, I could almost live without unix if I did not want a presence on the net
-
Current Windows version have one bug that trumps all and will never get fixed in the current versions ...A non-admin account is difficult if not impossible for home users.
-
interesting. Well, I guess with the use of linux on the rising, specially among government and big businesses, it's not surprising to see this. After all, people are interested in the infromation not really on our computer but rather the info stored in big companies. I think this is partially due to MS's better OS (XP) as well as their more frequent update in their security flaws.
-
[b]Originally posted by CrossFire851:[/b][quote]And this is some surpise????[/quote]I didn't have time to read this right i mistunderstoud it i thought that it had said something else...... sry for getting everyone wriled up.
-
It's true that people whine more when there was another flaw in Microsoft's products discovered, because Microsoft is used by a vast majority of people in the world. But I think that's just natural. Microsoft charged a premium for their products, and they obviously tried to crush their competitors repeatedly. We want something that we buy with our hard earned cash to work perfectly, and if it isn't, we have the right to whine.Linux isn't safer than Windows. Most Linux user have more experience with computer systems than Windows user. The fact that Linux still got busted more often than Windows shows that it's still a long way for it to be able to compete with Windows at the same level.
-
That article is so skewed it's amazing, "linux" as they call it is infact, in example Red Hat's case, a system with over 3000 applications included, you don't expect more vulnerabilities then?How many can you count in Windows? 10 maybe? Word, Notepad, MsPaint... Yahoo!!!Gotta love those researchers...
-
Windows problems are just reported more because an overwhelming majority(including me) uses them. So of course people will be bothered about something that they use than something that they don't, won't they? And XP hasn't been around as long as UNIX and Linux so that gives hackers more time to exploit vulberabilities in Linux and UNIX than in XP.
-
LOL! I can't believe what I'm seeing before my eyes here - people talking about Linux and unix as thoough they are the same thing (they are similar, but not one and the same.)Worse stil is that people are talking about Linux as though it's one single operating system that's been around for years. That last comment...[quote]And XP hasn't been around as long as UNIX and Linux so that gives hackers more time to exploit vulberabilities in Linux and UNIX than in XP.[/quote]...is truly amazing. It's almost as if it implies that Fedora Core 4 is not only the same as Mandrake 9.x, but is also no different from fedora 1, 2, and 3.Windows XP itself is no different in that respect. If you can lump all historical Linux OS's together, you can't then turn around and pick out only a current incarnation of windows. Windows XP is nothing more and nothing less than Windows NT 5.1. Anybody got a development history on the NT kernel?
-
[b]Originally posted by exscind:[/b][quote]Is it really a surprise, though? Microsoft is only a scapegoat because whenever there's security flaw it affects more people than any other systems out there. This means more people will whine about it and exaggerate the problem. I'm not saying Microsoft is perfectly safe, but I don't see how the die-hard Linux or Unix people can reject Microsoft so easily yet defends the former. This article hits it dead on, and glad it's there to raise another perspective to look at this situation.[/quote]I agree whole heartedly.I'm not going to linger long on this topic as I forsee it blowing up into a huge argument. A lot of people have strong opinions one way or another on this topic. Its nice to see someone not taking shots at microsoft for once.It will only get worse as Linux continues to gain popularity and thus the attention of hackers.
-
I think that what's interesting is that despite Windows systems being in far greater numbers than Linux systems, then if "...Linux and UNIX experienced more than three times as many reported security vulnerabilities than Windows..." that says a lot about how good security really is on those OSes.Surely Linux and Unix systems should be reporting less security issues because there are far less Linux and Unix systems in use compared to Windows?
-
hmmm.Would be an interesting experiment I think if we could put one linux box and one windows box online and advertise them as machines that are there purely for the purpose of letting people have a go at them.
-
Well, this is expected, because Microsoft receives more publicity. The more popular your software is, the more headlines it will receive. In Microsofts favor, it is the number one software developer in the world, so it will receive headlines, rather minor or small.
-
This surprised me too. I suppose it make sense that linux has had more issues but since its in the minority compared to Windows we dont hear about it that much. As others have said MS is the big red barn of OS's making it an easy target that effects everyone. While Linux is in the outback at least compared to OS install base. Who knew.
-
I find it hard to believe that spike is the only person here that actually understands what is messed up about this article. The article is talking about Linux in general. In reality Linux has to have more vulnerabilities, it only makes sense. How many different people/teams are developing different Linux OS's? Now compare that to Windows. People use your head and try to comprehend.
-
Fascinating information to be sure, but I see a lot fo folks getting up in arms to defend Linux just because THEIR Linux machine is secure. I'm sure that the diferent versions were all factored in, however, so it might upshoot the number a bit. Anyway, I really got a tickle out of some of the comments made by people here so far that just don't want to accept that Linux may have more flaws than windows. Hehe, you made my day, thanks!
-
it´s funny actually...Linux/Unix vulnerabilities are not taking people attention..Windows vulnerabilities do..
-
Which one had the most critical security issues?Also, if there is more patches with UNIX, it means that they fixed more things.
-
[b]Originally posted by DragonMaster:[/b][quote]Which one had the most critical security issues?Also, if there is more patches with UNIX, it means that they fixed more things. [/quote]or had more wrong to begin with?I understand your point maxtor, but also consider they arent just talking "windows xp professional" but all of microsofts currently supported OS's (and maybe the past.. basically any OS in use maybe? we need further information on exactly how the tests were done). 2003 serverXP professionalXP homeXP MCE2000 advanced server2000 server2000 professionalwindows 98windows 98 SEwindows MEWindows NT 4.0above are still used by people today and since the article had no clear distinction of which version and just said "windows" its unsure if we should include these or not. You could also further split these OS's via service packs since those usually entale some major changes to the OS and would constitute the same difference between linux versions your asking us to consider. I'm sure I might have missed some releases in there also. I woudlnt be surprised if people still use windows 95 though with that OS their connectivity to the internet would be so limited that it may be safe to discount it completely.I'm not saying your point isnt valid. We cant say either way. But if you're going to play one side of the fence acknowledge whats on the other as well.[Edited by asphix on 2006-01-06 12:59:55]
-
Well the best way to compare would be the cost per capita. That would give the real and fair cost of using linux and unix vs windows system. Over the 2005 year from all flavors of linux and unix and gather the total cost of downtime, prodcution loss, repair..etc due to vulnerabilities from businesses. There will be of course errors in determining what was caused by vulnerabilities or human error but if you have large enough sample size those error will be minimized. Then take all flavors of windows (i know for fact some businesses still use windows 98 and maybe even old systems) determined their costs. Then divide both by their estimated install base. This will give $$$ cost per machine or per user. For this to be fairly accurate its best do it only in the USA and only with businesses since they can give the most consistant data plus they would have the greatest effect on the economy. As my econ prof said "What affects the economy effects you."
Most Popular
| Trending | Featured |
-
Building a Thin Mini-ITX PC: Small and Silent Performance
-
Metro: Last Light Tested, Benchmarked
-
Xbox One: Entertainment hub first, gaming console second - but can it disrupt TV?
-
Microsoft officially announces Xbox One: here's what we know so far
-
'Supercapacitor' could fully charge your phone in less than 30 seconds
Featured on PC Games
Subscribe to TechSpot
Get free exclusive content, learn about new features and breaking tech news.