Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 21st Aug 2007 18:19 UTC, submitted by SEJeff
Privacy, Security, Encryption Jeff Jones has published another one of his vulnerability scorecards comparing various operating system offerings. As always, these figures just list the patched vulnerabilities over the designated period of time; they do not take into account any unfixed or undisclosed vulnerabilities. Hence, these reports are not proper measurements of security - they are just that, a tally of fixed vulnerabilities. Any conclusions like "x is more secure than y" cannot be drawn from this data set. As always, do with it as you please.
Thread beginning with comment 264900
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
by Mathman on Tue 21st Aug 2007 23:18 UTC
Member since:

The day Vista ships with 10,000 packages or whatever like Linux distros do is the day I'll take this nonsense seriously.

Reply Score: 1

by Obscurus on Wed 22nd Aug 2007 09:36 in reply to "FUD"
Obscurus Member since:

To be fair though, most of the packages that ship with a typical Linux distribution have nothing whatsoever to do with the core OS, so you would be comparing apples and oranges if you are basing your comparison on an OS with relatively few "packages" vs an OS that bundles loads of miscellaneous applications that have no bearing on the security of the OS itself. And since an install of Vista consumes nearly twice the HDD space of a Linux distro, in terms of sheer complexity, Vista is probably harder to maintain (I dare say because of all the backwards compatibility userland crud).

In terms of the Kernel itself, I would hazard a guess that the Windows Kernel is intrinsically more secure than the Linux Kernel, though I would expect a flood of posts disputing this opinion...

Reply Parent Score: 2