Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 15th Apr 2009 09:54 UTC
Bugs & Viruses Whenever the Conficker worm comes up here on OSNews (or any other site for that matter) there are always a number of people who point their fingers towards Redmond, stating that it's their fault Conifcker got out. While Microsoft has had some pretty lax responses to security threats in the past, it handled the whole Conficker thing perfectly, releasing a patch even before Conficker existed, and pushing it through Windows Update. In any case, this made me wonder about Linux distributions and security. What if a big security hole pops up in a Linux distribution - who will the Redmond-finger-pointing people hold responsible?
E-mail Print r 1   · Read More · 71 Comment(s)
Thread beginning with comment 358659
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

I don't know what kind of Distro users you have around your parts. Anyone I know using a distribution is very quick about updating. Average users have automatic updates, more advanced users do it by hand. For me, it's the first two seconds after my first login of the day just before I go into the graphic desktop.

In the case of SSH, I think you mean the Debian SSH bug which only effected Debian and derivitives like Ubuntu. The bug was not caused by OpenSSH but a developer who didn't follow Debian's patch policy. It was also fixed very quickly when discovered and now all one does is include openssh-blacklist to avoid the weak certificates.

Where exactly are you seeing overwelming evidence that "linux is more secure" is an outright lie? Granted, I'd say it has a higher potential for security since any computer can be configured to be insecure; it's just easier with some platforms.

Reply Parent Score: 3