[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
Paul Sutton wrote:
any ideas on wording, saying Linux is more secure, seems in the light of this thread to need a bit more attached to it.
It always has needed more attached to it.Opening attachments remains a risk, because any application with vulnerability might be started by clicking relevant attachments, and the attachment may be crafted to exploit the vulnerability.
There are good reasons why this was less of an issue with Linux than Windows XP and earlier Windows, but Microsoft have tried to close those structural gaps and I'm pretty sure if you enable all their security features in Windows 7 it is pretty good in comparison to where Linux was.
SELinux is probably able to give Linux an edge in those aspects, but it isn't a big edge and it only applies if it is installed and working!
I think now the bigger issue is simply complexity, and people being unable or unwilling to enable security features they have on whatever OS. As there is a trade off still between security features and smooth working of some applications.
Windows also suffers from a large reservoir of malware floating around in mostly older Windows versions, but it can still spread to newer stuff once it acquires suitable privileges. This happens on Linux systems as well, but there is simply less malware around to do this in the first place, and it is less sophisticated, that isn't a fault with Windows as it stands today.
-- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html