Windows beats Linux on security

According to new study

Published on June 27, 2005 By Frogboy In WinCustomize News

Microsoft is announcing the results of a long-running study that pits Linux vs. Windows 2003 Server and finds Microsoft Windows to have an overall lower cost of ownership and better security. Wipro surveyed 90 companies in the U.S. and Western Europe with 2,500 to 113,000 employees where both the Windows and open source operating systems were simultaneously being run. When the costs of updating are distributed across the size of the environment and evaluated on a per-asset basis, the study shows Microsoft software to be less expensive to patch than open source equivalents. These findings confirm what many customers are experiencing in their deployment scenarios.

Source: Neowin.net

Comments

JesseJ

on Jun 27, 2005

This "study" is just more Microsoft propaganda since it's from MS themselves and not an independent researcher.

HighCommand

on Jun 27, 2005

I thought that it was Wipro that conducted the test. They should have included OSX server, but I think it would have been too hard to find companies with all three side by side.

kona0197

on Jun 27, 2005

I agree with Jesse. I don't believe Windows could be more secure than Linux. I think the story is a load of BS aimed at further spreading FUD against Linux.

Jafo

on Jun 27, 2005

I suppose it never occured to respondent #1 or #3 that Microsoft would hardly be silly enough to 'cook the results' when it would be extremely likely that anti-MS peanuts would jump at the chance to dispute the findings.

To question the findings is one thing...to dismiss them offhand is a revelation of the nay-sayers' ineptitude and myopia....

kona0197

on Jun 27, 2005

I retract my previous statement. I still find it hard to believe that Windows is a bit better but Jafo has an excellent point. My apoligies.

sixshot

on Jun 28, 2005

I'll comment on this, since security is always an issue with everyone.

As Jafo pointed out, it's one thing to question. It's another to dismiss it. I'm those who will question the result as Microsoft is trying every which way to sway people from Open Source solutions like *BSD and Linux. If it means that they have to get a company who'll favor them, then that's what they'll do. They're only wanting to advertise themselves as being more secure than their "competitors." So I find that this study and result to be "normal."

But since Microsoft has had some issues with security due to the numerous security holes and exploits that plague Windows server systems, I will question the result since it favors Microsoft. My opinion says Linux is more secure than Windows but any Linux user (real user who know how it works, the benefits and risks it provides) would argue that Linux can be made to be just as insecure as Windows. And that's the truth too, since the Linux platform isn't something one should consider "easy to use" by those who are accustomed to the GUI of NT-based systems. I've used Linux as my firewall, gateway, and a server since it can run on my P200 system. And it sure beats having to worry about security in a "security-ridden internet." But I also took precautions too, which is the very foundation to securing any server. Ports were blocked. Ports were logged. Packets were dropped when they are malformed. And packets were let through when they're proper.

The main thing to securing any server regardless of any platform, be it BSD, Linux, or Windows, is preparation. If you have a good plan and strategy for securing your network and server, it'll be hard for the attacker to take the machine down. Blocking ports to various services helps a lot and having a good firewall system in place makes it that much better. From a faraway viewpoint, I think Windows can also be just as secure as Linux. However, it's not going to be perfect, just like Linux. Keeping the system up to date and closing off unnecessary service ports is vital to keeping a system secure. And as such, it's possible that Windows could be more secure.

Yes, sounds very contradicting, doesn't it? Main point here is that, it's not surprising that Windows can be more secure. But *BSD and Linux, along with OSX Server, can be made the same -- secured, safe, and tough. I've had my Linux router provide firewall security to my network for the longest time (several years). And I've learned some time ago that I had a slightly bad configuration and yet my system was never compromised because of it. Then again, I do not run a heavy traffic site. But I do notice many times that people tried to log into my ssh server repeatedly and many worm attacks on the Apache logs.

I firmly believe Linux and other UNIX flavors are better at providing security than Windows. But that's just my opinion. Windows seemingly have too many security problems that makes me fear of using it as a firewall or even a gateway for my network. The added fact that it probably performs poorly on a lowly P200 also deters me from using Windows to do that also. Maybe it's propaganda. But who's to say that Microsoft can't promote their own products to gain as much advantage as possible? Meanwhile, crackers everywhere are busy finding whatever holes they can uncover... Let them tell us what's more secure...

wombatDK

on Jun 28, 2005

hear hear sixshot. I could not agree more.

I'd add this: I tend to say "Use the right tool for the job at hand". Sometimes that's Linux. Sometimes it's Windows. Or BSD. Or a hardware solution... OS zealots just are people who insist that their hammer can perfectly well work as a screwdriver - and a better screwdriver at that.

KoolKat2500

on Jun 29, 2005

What OS is better all depends on the customer and what they want to do with it.
From what I've heard:
Graphic Design-Mac
Software Design\Scripting, Gaming-Windows
Server-Linux
Don't know crap about BSD though.
*BUT* I favor Windows. Then Mac, then Linux. Mostly because I've never used Linux, well I TRIED to, at an electronics store, but you couldn't log in (didn't give out any username/password, and it WAS for show). And it took like 10 minutes to boot. Ugh.

Ka806

on Jun 29, 2005

Leave it to a study sponsered by microsoft to say that microsoft is more secure

Of course linux can be made insecure.... but in most cases you have to work at it to make linux insecure, where as windows you have to work at it to make it more secure.

Just looking at to layer issues and I easily make my decision. Compare root/ non root members in linux, to the admin/non-admin privelages in windows....
Windows is just not designed with security in mind. Its meant for usability, and to allow increased usability, it does have to tone down on securtiy and allow users to do more with their pc in less time.
Anyways thats pointless banter im spitting out.

The main point is that this is a Microsoft sponsered study, so its perfectly right to regard the results as straight up BS, especially when compared with the hundreds of other studies which prove otherwise. Id respect MS more if they didnt BS like this. The *nix communities know whats what so news like this gets brushed off quick.

*BUT* I favor Windows. Then Mac, then Linux. Mostly because I've never used Linux, well I TRIED to, at an electronics store, but you couldn't log in (didn't give out any username/password, and it WAS for show). And it took like 10 minutes to boot. Ugh.

Linux does have faster boot times then windows =P. You should give linux a try, if you care to. If you dont, I highly suggest you dont use it. Thats the thing about it, you can configure it in every way possible. Its a blessing and a curse. (curse for newbies, blessing for experts). At least linux is the prettiest out there (and yes i defend this statement =P)

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!