Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 10th Mar 2006 12:29 UTC, submitted by Moule
Privacy, Security, Encryption It's official, boys and girls: it's easier to kick in a door when it's open. "A test has revealed that a Linux server is far less likely to be compromised. In fact, unpatched Red Hat and SuSE servers were not breached at all during a six-week trial, while the equivalent Windows systems were compromised within hours. However, patching does make a difference. Patched versions of Windows fared far better, remaining untouched throughout the test, as did the Red Hat and Suse deployments."
Thread beginning with comment 103254
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Unpatched servers?
by Arawn on Fri 10th Mar 2006 18:33 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Unpatched servers?"
Member since:

Hmmm, I don't know about what kind of "unstable" you're refering to, but MS rolled out the Windows 2000 Security Rollout about 6 months back, and it broke a lot of functionalities, one example was the network reporting of NAI Security Suite for SMB, I personally had that problem happen. They had to withdraw it from deployment, and ready a new version.
You can can call that "unstable", 'cause it de-stabilised the server functionality...

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Unpatched servers?
by Tom K on Sat 11th Mar 2006 22:14 in reply to "RE[3]: Unpatched servers?"
Tom K Member since:

Granted ... that is one update that I distinctly remember causing problems.

There really is nothing else that I can remember.

Reply Parent Score: 1