Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 5th Nov 2010 13:10 UTC
Permalink for comment 448741
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2009-08-26
Overall, using Secunia's stats as a comparison between system security seems (as they themselves state) pointless. There's no available information on the severity of vulnerabilities, and they don't even take into account whether or not they've been patched or not when counting the vulnerabilities. Having 7% of known vulnerabilities unpatched as is listed for Windows 2008 however, seems very bad.
Find a vulnerability in Server 2008 this year that was as bad as the last 3 kernel exploits. You won't be able to.
These were actively exploited vulnerabilities. Web hosts had major headaches from them.
http://blog.iweb.com/en/2010/09/64bits-linux-important-security-vul...
Note that the BSDs and Solaris have been safer for web hosts as well. Linux + Apache is an unsafe combination compared to the alternatives.