Lazor, Ed <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How secure the system is depends more on configuration, how > well you keep up with updates / patches, and whether you take > time to configure security tools (firewalls, tripwire, etc.). > > Linux comes with all kinds of things installed and enabled by > default. IMHO that makes the default installation less > secure, especially if you're not familiar enough with Linux > to go through and disable or secure everything on the system. Yes, I understand both of these principles. Let's look at this way then, is there any reason for Linux to be touted as being more secure than Windows? You mention patches and configuration. Well Windows can be patched and can have services/software removed from it. But so can Linux, so are there any outstanding (not outstanding as in great, but rather stand out) qualities of Linux that Windows does not have? I know that Windows is full of buffer overflows waiting to be exploited, I know that the time between vulnerabilities being disclosed and patches being made is much shorter in the open source world than it is in the MS world. Thanks for your response. Chris. p.s. I've never heard of tripwire, I'll have to check that out. -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
