Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2004 19:45:38 +0100 From: Henrik W Lund <henrik.w.lund@broadpark.no> To: Jorn Argelo <jorn@wcborstel.nl> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: *BSD is considered the safest OS Message-ID: <41892752.4010406@broadpark.no> In-Reply-To: <20041102173545.M67685@wcborstel.nl> References: <20041102120139.U70884@kheops.speedy.net.pe> <20041102173545.M67685@wcborstel.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?41892752.4010406>