Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 21st Aug 2007 22:03 UTC, submitted by Rahul
Permalink for comment 264914
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.





Member since:
2005-12-15
That doesn't really wash with me. This seemingly endless blabber that all things Linux are more secure than all things Microsoft has been shown to be wrong time and time again. That doesn't mean the reverse is true either.
Take a look at the security analysis and patch levels and you'll see that even though Microsoft do have critical patches, so does Linux, Solaris, MacOS and so on.
The suggestion that the NSA "wrote" SELinux doesn't imply that it's secure. Security comes through proof. I'm sure all the pro-Linux, anti-Microsoft chaps will stand up right about now and proclaim that Microsoft has a very poor record.. this is true, I wouldn't disagree with that.
What I would disagree with is, is the implication that an NSA born Linux is secure, just because, and that somehow Microsoft's poor record gives SELinux the gold star award for security.
Edited 2007-08-22 00:33