On Sat, Jan 25, 2003 at 06:47:49PM +0000, neil@DOMINO.ORG said:
Third point to the correlation above: The vast majority of Windows admins are dingbat-morons, self-proclaimed experts. Had then not been dingbat-morons, and applied the readily available and widely announced patches (as zealously as unix folks patch thier stuff), this'd be all moot, and we'd all have gotten a better nights sleep.
I don't think this is fair statement either, Linux and Microsoft have the most issues because they have the largest market share - security by obscurity. It doesn't mean they have anymore issues than any other vendors, success brings problems and this is one of them.
That's partially, but not entirely, true. I would lay money against anybody willing to bet, that the OpenBSD project has cleaner code, with fewer bugs, than any other OS in common use today, commercial _or_ free. Yes, the OpenBSD project (for example) has fewer announced vulnerabilities and exploits - but it's not due to a lack of market share. It's due to clean code. Conversely, MS software (both OS, server and client-side) leading the way in vulnerabilities, patches and exploits is not due entirely to market share. Redmond has a history of releasing crap code, with security consistently taking a backseat to featuritis and time-to-market. This is straying off-topic, and I tend to rant on this issue, so this will be my last post on the subject. -- -= Scott Francis || darkuncle (at) darkuncle (dot) net =- GPG key CB33CCA7 has been revoked; I am now 5537F527 illum oportet crescere me autem minui