Unix vs. NT

[Skanky Burns]

I wonder how many more security flaws there are in Winblows that may not be found for years or may never be discovered!

Why would a security flaw matter if no-one has discovered it? At least one person would need to have discovered it before it could be exploited.

[Kuciwalker]

I wonder how many security flaws there are in Macintoshes that have been there for years and years that haven't been discovered because no one cares enough to hack it.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

I'm quite happy so far with the poll results.

Keep 'em comin' guys!

[Asher]

Originally posted by Mr. Nice Guy
I remember that one time I read an article on News.com less than a year ago that said there was a security flaw found in Winblows that had been there for 5 years and had found it's way into multiple versions of the OS over the years!!! That's just scary!

I wonder how many more security flaws there are in Winblows that may not be found for years or may never be discovered! That's just plain !

No way am I gonna use Micro$uck$ Winblows! Sorry Bill.

Oh, this is too good to pass up.

You should talk to Darkstar@CounterGlow (old-timer computer geek). He'll tell you about 30-year old known security flaws in Unixes that are still around or just recently closed.

"Micro$uck$ Winblows!"
As creative as you are sexually active, I see.

[geeslaka]

The members of the Unix community I have met have on average been more responsible and reasonable people than the members of the windows community I have met. Therefore, I believe the different Unises to be more secure than windows.

[Asher]

Originally posted by geeslaka
The members of the Unix community I have met have on average been more responsible and reasonable people than the members of the windows community I have met. Therefore, I believe the different Unises to be more secure than windows.

This kind of logic is an example of the logic of the Unix community, and precisely why they're not necessarily more secure.

The true Unixes actually are, because they've had 30+ years to mature and get all the bugs written off. If you looked at the Unixes when they were 10 years old, how old NT is, they were in a far worse state in terms of security than NT is right now.

Keep in mind that Linux is not a Unix...

As for the "Unix" community being more responsible...the person who holds the Unix trademark, SCO, is going around threatening to sue people and trying to charge licenses for Linux (because it "stole" some stuff...) to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars, when the people thought what they were getting was free.

Responsibility.

Meanwhile, the MS license actually protects the consumer and/or corporation from such practices -- if any legal issue ever comes up regarding Windows, the license states MS will handle the legal matter completely at their cost. They're not left hanging to dry as is the case today with Linux.

Which is more responsible?

[MikeH]

The difference with UNIX is most of the security flaws don't give you root access, most NT ones do.

[Asher]

That has nothing to do with the NT kernel and everything to do with the user-level permissions people run things at.

Starting in Server 2003, stuff like IIS run in their own restricted account to prevent all those CodeRed-type worms.

As for the desktop/workstation variations, the reason there is the vast majority of Windows users log in under "root" to do things, while Unix ones typically are restricted accounts.

If the people who used Unix had the same mindset as the people who used Windows, the "root"ing security flaws would be quite comparable.

Very very very few of the Windows flaws can take a program running in a restricted account and get root from it. They usually worked by getting root due to the user's or program's privledge level.

[MikeH]

Starting in Server 2003

Already?

and you are right, the problem is that stuff like IIS always needed to run as root. It is getting to a more sensible situation now.

[Dry]

I guess you mean OS, not kernel.

Well, to answer your question, here is my experience:
I work now since 12 years in the software business. I have worked on softwares controlling a nuke power, test (mainly) and onboard program for Ariane 5 rocket and air traffic control, I now work on programs controlling semicon production lines.
In those 12 years, I worked on Vax/vms first, but then very fast we switched to Unix platforms for the real work, on Microsoft for the paperwork (documentation); I spend more than 6 hours a day on so many (I would say 20) Unix machines, less than 2 hours a day on (I would say 3) M$.
In 12 years, I have experiment only one single Unix crash (due to software) and 2 or 3 due to hardware (crash disk).
I remember at least 4 NT crashes (due to software) in the last 2 years for myself, 10 for one of my colleague.
And did I tell you that we usually are concurrent users on the Unix, while we are alone on our PCs?
I don't know a single industry whose control program is running on NT.

Does that answer your question?

[Whaleboy]

BSD (especially NetBSD/OpenBSD) is far far more secure. Linux (2.4.x) isnt significantly ahead of NT, and somewhat behind BSD, although I think we should reserve judgement on Linux until 2.6.x is released.

Asher is right, UNIX isnt a kernel, but one assumes BSD, Linux etc kernels, which is what talking about. Also, I'm going to hold out for the HURD as well, although it would do so much better if Stallman wasn't micromanaging it .

Still, MS has a better desktop interface imo, and few desktop users care that much about server security.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Dry
Ariane 5 rocket

Those are the same ones that crash due to software problems, no?

[Dry]

Originally posted by Asher

Those are the same ones that crash due to software problems, no?

Indeed

[Asher]

What OS do the rockets run?

[Dry]

Originally posted by Asher
What OS do the rockets run?

To be honest I don't remember (if I ever knew).
Main development for us (ground tests before the launch), was on vax/vms.
For our small participation on the onboard software, we did it on a unix machine.
The compiler (cross compiler) was specific because the onboard software had to run on a very specific card (protected against space radiations).