What kind of logic is that? Of course most sites that have been hacked have been running Unix, but why? That is because more then 70% of the Internet runs on Unix. If more then 70% of the Internet ran on NT, and most of those sites were hacked, would the same saying apply? NT is insecure? There is a reason that more then 70% of the internet runs on Unix, it is because Unix can be made MORE secure then NT can (Even that is based on personal interpretation). Unix has 25 years on NT in support, development and real-world deployment. Because of this, Unix vendors have seen just about every scenario in which a Unix system can be deployed. As a result they have (for lack of a better term) "hardened" the system against that type of attack. Because the world keeps changing, and the methods used by hackers keep changing, the security world must also keep changing. (Unix and NT included) As more and more sites start running NT, you WILL also see more and more NT security holes discovered. Anyone who thinks otherwise has no basis to be giving any opinion on security. The difference between Unix vendors and Microsoft, from my experience, is that you are now depending on a huge, slow, "it's not a bug it's a feature" attitude from Microsoft. Anyone who thinks that NT is more secure then any other OS because it is Microsoft, has been successfully duped by the big Microsoft marketing machine. NO operating system is "secure". ANYONE with enough determination can break through any firewall or security system that you put in place. The attack may not come from where you'd expect, or from someone that you'd expect. The only truly secure system is one that is either turned off, or is disconnected from the network. > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Jeremy [SMTP:peter.jeremyat_private] > Sent: Sunday, May 03, 1998 5:46 PM > To: firewall-wizardsat_private > Subject: NT vs Unix on the Internet > > I'm currently engaged in an internal NT vs Unix debate and trying to > insert some facts into the debate. > > One point that has come up is along the lines of `most Internet sites > that have been hacked have been running Unix therefore Unix is > insecure'. Can anyone point me to some figures showing what sorts of > sites have been broken into and what they were running, compared to > the Internet as a whole? > > Note: I don't want to start a flamewar here. I'm just after some > defendable figures in place of FUD. > > Peter > -- > Peter Jeremy (VK2PJ) peter.jeremyat_private > Alcatel Australia Limited > 41 Mandible St Phone: +61 2 9690 5019 > ALEXANDRIA NSW 2015 Fax: +61 2 9690 5247
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Apr 13 2001 - 12:58:23 PDT