From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Nov 3 18:45:40 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B304116A4CE for ; Wed, 3 Nov 2004 18:45:40 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail.broadpark.no (mail.broadpark.no [217.13.4.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 420AC43D1F for ; Wed, 3 Nov 2004 18:45:40 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from henrik.w.lund@broadpark.no) Received: from [10.0.0.3] (52.80-202-129.nextgentel.com [80.202.129.52]) by mail.broadpark.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8A16485F; Wed, 3 Nov 2004 19:46:28 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <41892752.4010406@broadpark.no> Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2004 19:45:38 +0100 From: Henrik W Lund User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD amd64; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20041013 X-Accept-Language: no, en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jorn Argelo References: <20041102120139.U70884@kheops.speedy.net.pe> <20041102173545.M67685@wcborstel.nl> In-Reply-To: <20041102173545.M67685@wcborstel.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: *BSD is considered the safest OS X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2004 18:45:40 -0000 Jorn Argelo wrote: > On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 12:12:54 -0500 (PET), Richard Cotrina wrote > >>Perhaps this is an old news, but it's interesting to post it to the list. >> >>A recent study made by MI2G, an UK company focused in data risk >>security, shows that *BSD and MacOS X were the less breached OS in a >>sample of more that 200K computers permanently connected to the internet. > > > I personally don't feel that any OS is safer then the other. It's just what > the administrator does. A Linux guru can't secure a Windows machine as good as > a Windows guru can, and vica versa. > > One can say that a particular OS attracks more experienced administrators. > Perhaps. But again it's the administrator which is the crucial fact of an OS > being secure or not. It's rather easy to say that Windows is less secure then > Linux or BSD because there are more viruses/exploits for Window. Well, I think > that services like Sendmail and Apache can contain more exploits then Windows, > to be honest. Of course, I can't prove anything, but that's just my personal > feeling about it. > > Cheers, > > Jorn Actually, I read somewhere that UNIX systems are more vulnerable to buffer overflows than Windows systems. Can't confirm the validity of this, though. -- Henrik W Lund