* Chris W. Parker > Hello, > > I'm trying to sell my boss on replacing our Win2k IIS web server > with a RH8/9 Apache server. Although it's my understanding that > Linux is more secure than windows I really don't have much to point > out in defense on that idea. > > Please list for me reasons why you believe (or know for a fact) that > Linux is more secure than our current setup. Let's assume two > different situations: 1. Out of the box with a standard install, > 2. Standard install, fully patched.
This is no easy question, mainly because it is not well formed. What _is_ security anyway? To begin with, there are a lot of ways to interprete the question: 1. The risk analyses view. 2. The security policy model view. 3. The security architecture view. 4. The security implementation view. I have no time to go into each of the points above, but here is some considerations: 1. In risk analyses, you have to identify your systems vulnerabilities and asses a probability (or likelihood) for exploitation and the potential value loss. Interesting here is that Linux system currently gets better value when coming to risk for explotation because most attacks are directed against Windows system, e.g. the ILOVEYOU worm. 2. Most interesting, really, but also most neglected, is the security policy view. You start with your organisation's security policy, formulated, say, as a /protection profile/ aka security policy model. Then you take the different systems security policy model formulated, say, as a /security target/. The most secure system is the system that is closest to your security policy model, or protection profile. The point here is to look at the security concepts of the different systems, or What _kind_ of security is possible to achieve in the system? Linux and Windows are quite close here, but both of them have fuzzy concepts when it comes to security elements for distributed systems. However, both of them support more or less the pletaforia of ideas that are suggested for security in distributed system, but both lack a coherent model of security in these systems. 3. Security architecture is how well the mechanisms found in the systems do support the security policy model described above. Are there support for encryption, for authentication, for single sign on, for auditing? Do the different parts play well together? Are there potential loop holes? Is it complete, in the sense that it is not bypassable? And so on. I really don't know enough to state who is better here, but I myself are impressed by the amount of products available for Linux systems. 4. Implementation covers the question on how well each security product including the operating system are implemented. In particular, how many security exploitable bugs that remain. Linux beats Windows by several magnitudes here, I would think. Another point is how certain one can get answers to questions like the four above. In particular how one is able to filter out the noise from marketing and from flame wars, and only get hold of information that are usable and correct. I also think Linux wins here. But I cannot say I haven't taken side in this conflict... :-) -- Jon Haugsand, [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.norges-bank.no -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
