Tweet
May 2003 corp/gov't security breaches: Windows: 3,801 Linux: 19,208
Draw your own conclusions. 
Linux Not as Secure as Windows Server
Curiously, this news will come as a surprise to some people, but according to a report from the security experts at mi2g, open-source poster child Linux is losing the security fight--big time--to Windows Server. Yes, you read that right: In May 2003 alone, Linux-based corporate and government systems experienced 19,208 successful breaches worldwide, whereas similarly oriented Microsoft Windows Server systems suffered only 3801 breaches. During this time period, more than 75 percent of all server-based breaches occurred on Linux systems; Windows systems were responsible for just 15 percent of breaches. Furthermore, the reports says that Windows-based systems were far more resilient than Linux-based systems during the Iraq war months from March to May 2003, a time of increased hacking activity. mi2g, which has been tracking server attacks since 1995, now oversees a database that contains more than 220,000 individual attacks and more than 7000 hacker groups. So why are Linux servers more easily compromised? The security experts quote several primary reasons: First, most Linux servers are improperly configured and don't come with decent default security configurations. Second, the open-source community doesn't have a coherent "trustworthy computing" initiative. Third, Linux is a target because of its increasing popularity in the server world. And, fourth, Frank Stallone. In other words, everything I've been saying about Windows, Linux, and security not only is true but is evolving in a wonderfully predictable way. Shouldn't we stop all the bogus "Windows isn't secure" baloney when a far less secure competitor is just waiting to be compromised?
Curiously, this news will come as a surprise to some people, but according to a report from the security experts at mi2g, open-source poster child Linux is losing the security fight--big time--to Windows Server. Yes, you read that right: In May 2003 alone, Linux-based corporate and government systems experienced 19,208 successful breaches worldwide, whereas similarly oriented Microsoft Windows Server systems suffered only 3801 breaches. During this time period, more than 75 percent of all server-based breaches occurred on Linux systems; Windows systems were responsible for just 15 percent of breaches. Furthermore, the reports says that Windows-based systems were far more resilient than Linux-based systems during the Iraq war months from March to May 2003, a time of increased hacking activity. mi2g, which has been tracking server attacks since 1995, now oversees a database that contains more than 220,000 individual attacks and more than 7000 hacker groups. So why are Linux servers more easily compromised? The security experts quote several primary reasons: First, most Linux servers are improperly configured and don't come with decent default security configurations. Second, the open-source community doesn't have a coherent "trustworthy computing" initiative. Third, Linux is a target because of its increasing popularity in the server world. And, fourth, Frank Stallone. In other words, everything I've been saying about Windows, Linux, and security not only is true but is evolving in a wonderfully predictable way. Shouldn't we stop all the bogus "Windows isn't secure" baloney when a far less secure competitor is just waiting to be compromised?
(literally)
Comment