Linked by Amjith Ramanujam on Sat 19th Jul 2008 19:01 UTC, submitted by cypress
Linux Linux and UNIX-like operating systems in general are regarded as being more secure for the common user, in contrast with operating systems that have "Windows" as part of their name. Why is that? When entering a dispute on the subject with a Windows user, the most common argument he tries to feed me is that Windows is more widespread, and therefore, more vulnerable. Apart from amusing myths like "Linux is only for servers" or "does it have a word processor?", the issue of Linux desktop security is still seriously misunderstood.
Thread beginning with comment 323758
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
My observations
by trenchsol on Sun 20th Jul 2008 13:29 UTC
Member since:

I am not Windows expert, but occasionally I deploy my Java written software on Windows machine. Here is what I noticed.

1. Some active network services can not or should not be shut down

2. In fact there is no complete information on what each service does

3. There are no domain sockets. There are "local" named pipes, but many applications use sockets.

4. Majority of files are accessible by anyone in every way. If I created a file, it would not be owned by me. I have to make additional effort to ban other users from accessing it. It is true even on Windows server. I wonder if it can be configured differently and if it can, why nobody does it.

Admins have to keep Windows machines in total lockdown. Even the access from local network, for administration tasks, are not allowed. There is no such thing as SSH, although there is a SSH server for Windows. What about access lists ?

I wonder is it a cultural problem or there is a deficiency in OS design. I'd like to read some comments on this.

Reply Score: 3