Windows More Secure Than Linux? Yep!

[yuser]

On Sat, 2 Feb 2002 23:46:50 -1000, "Warren Togami" <warren at togami.com>
said:


>This guy is also comparing NTBugTraq to BugTraq.  I could be wrong about
>this, but aren't most of the NT security hole details NOT published on
>NTBugTraq because the details are 'copyrighted' by Microsoft, and they will

Not exactly as I remember.  This issue appeared about 8-12 months ago
on NTBUGTRAQ when MS attempted to "revise" their method of releasing
security information.   Instead of releasing a full detailed security
notice they simply released a very general headline statement of the
issue with a link to a MS web page with the full advisory (MS's
version of detailed is different then others).  The copyright issue
was  with anyone that publicly posted the full advisory somewhere like
NTBUGTRAQ and not just a link to the advisory.  MS's motive I think
was they could control the advisories a little better and simply
modify a single web page as needed to modify or change the advisory at
a later time to provide updates and prevent any misinformation from
spreading further if a change to the original advisory was indeed
needed (that was a long run-on sentence!).  This idea went by the way
side and they now give just about the same details they did before but
with a kind statement like this included in the begining of any
advisory:

>Microsoft encourages customers to review the Security Bulletin at:
>http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/MS01-049.asp.


I have been subscribed  both NTBUGTRAQ and BUGTRAQ for years.  I do
not know exactly how Paul Thurrott got the figures of what had more
security holes.  BUGTRAQ deals with just about everything as noted
here http://www.securityfocus.com/popups/forums/bugtraq/faq.shtml
all OS's (but mainly *nix's), about any server process (apache, ftp,
samba, nfs etc), DoS attacks, cross site scripting, Java, cookie
implementations flaws, DB backends, users software, cgi's, php, perl,
crashes, quirks,  blah blah blah. 
NTBUGTRAQ is very narrow.  Security of NT and above or one of the Back
Office products relating to NT or above as noted in the charter at
http://ntbugtraq.ntadvice.com/default.asp?pid=31&sid=1

You are clearly comparing apples to oraanges here.

WUFTP, Apache, Domino and god knows what may have a huge hole or an
issue.  Just because it can run on  Linux does not make it a Linux
problem.  I think Paul Thurrott completely is full of sh(bksp-bksp)
beans..

The guy is currently complete Windows everything.  He has a few
Windows web sites and has been involved with many Windows related
magazines.  

This guy is not even on the playing field, he's lucky to be in the
stands.. Searching groups.google.com turnes up many posts of his in
Linux groups.  I guess he has ran out of real news to report and will
now post anything to stir controversy to attempt to get more
recognition for himself. 

http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/win2k_pro.asp
>Though rebel operating system Linux seems to be getting an unfair share
> of news lately, let's be serious: The refined and elegant Windows 2000
> Professional is in a different league altogether from the rough and
> tumble "roll your own UI" of Linux. There's just no comparison. 

http://www.win2000mag.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=21744
>Something odd happened this week: Two major players in the Linux 
>community announced plans to "embrace and extend" Microsoft's .NET
> initiative so that it works with the Linux OS. 

The entire article from here
http://www.win2000mag.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=8971