There seems to have been quite a lot of debate in the security
arena over the past few day on the topic of Windows vs. Linux as a secure platform. As you can guess its a hot topic with manyheated opinions on either side.
ComupterWeekly state that Linux/Unix bugs outnumbered Windows flaws three-to-one with 45%
of all vulnerabilities. These figures
were provided by CERT, from browsing their
website it isnt clear if they are funded by any party which may sway their independence.
An article on Slashdot,
the security research group, mentions a story from the Globe and Mail. This states that "During August, 67
per cent of all successful and verifiable digital attacks against on-line
servers targeted Linux, followed by Microsoft Windows at 23.2 per cent. A total
of 12,892 Linux on-line servers running e-business and information sites were
successfully breached in that month, followed by 4,626 Windows servers." The reactions to this have been ongoing and
with some passion. The biggest concerns
over this article were firstly that the research was funded by Microsoft, the
second being that the context in which these breaches are used or recorded can
pervert the reality. The number of Linux
servers running e-business and information sites is much greater than that of
Windows, also if taken in a broader context, each Windows machine (be that a
server or home user) which is infected by an internet worm like SLAMMER.
NIMDA. CODE RED. BUGBEAR. BLASTER etc is actually fully breached andpotentially much more of a concern than a defaced or broken website.
I think as with any statistics these will always show what
the organisation behind the collection and processing of them wants to
show. I dont think there will ever be
universal agreement on which system is better, which is more secure etc. Having worked with both I would personally gofor Linix/BSD, however Im sure many readers would go the other way.