thetan wrote:I guess my point is, your OS doesn't make you a hacker or enable you to be one. The only thing that enables you to be a hacker is your desire to learn and creativity to manipulate systems.
thetan wrote:About Linux being more secure, that's a slight misconception. The absolute fact is when you compare the vulnerability count side by side throughout any point in time of any major NT release (windows) to any major Linux distro, you will notice two things. That the discovered vulnerability count for each is remarkably close and if not, statistically Linux has had more. Which is slightly remarkable considering that NT has the largest market share of OS's out in the wild, making it the most targeted system. Also, zone-h statistics ( http://www.zone-h.org/news/id/4686 ) show Linux as the most defaced/exploited OS from 2005-2007 (they used to publish these stats every year but "mofos be lazy" i guess) this however doesn't surprise me to much though as linux has now probably the largest market share in web accessible servers.
thetan wrote:Once again, i'm a huge *nix user and i'd choose it over windows any day based on personal preference.
I still don't believe I've made a single misconception as i have not said that either one is more secure then the other. The point i was trying to make (all though looking back i realize i forgot to explicitly state), was that neither one is truly more secure then the other. Sure bugs/exploits get patched relatively fast in open-source software (not always the case in my personal experience but we'll just say this is how it is on average). However, the biggest point of failure is from the average systems administrator and this is the case with both OS's. Sure critical security patches may be available and ready to install but the simple fact of the matter is the average person (or even average sys admin at times) has the IQ of a small fish in terms of security conscious. If i were to take a guess on how many web accessible systems (and even more non web accessible systems) are still vulnerable from critical security vulnerabilities that have patches available ...... well, i wouldn't because zone-h is a half decent indicator on how many un-patched systems are out in the wild but what i'm getting at is, theirs ALOT of un-patched systems and this goes for all OS's (Can you believe theirs still recent occurences of the sasser worm showing up in small networks? )
So in conclusion, it's not that any given OS is more secure or less secure (<personal bias>unless were talking about OpenBSD, which owns</personal bias>) as what it really comes down to is, it's the people that maintain them that suck
thedotmaster wrote:There are some operating systems that implement, through design, methods that improve security.
thedotmaster wrote:Regardless of what you said though, people do use the "linux/firefox/apache has more vulnerabilities" argument a lot to justify using a proprietary system.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests