Vista: How Does Security Stack Up?

[freebird]

For consumers looking to boost their computers' security, is Vista the way to go? Or can Linux provide greater protection from hacker attacks? In the face of viruses, worms or other breaches, the answer is obvious. "We don't need a survey or study to determine the answer. The answer is universal with those that actually manage these systems," said John Cherry of the OSDL Desktop Linux Working Group.

Linux Security

Linux outperforms Windows XP and Windows Vista because its architecture is different. Linux derives its security in large part from its Unix design philosophy, also used as the basis for Mac OS X.

source :
*www.linuxinsider.com/story/Kw3aVhQQWaCL4R/Linux-vs-Vista-How-Does-Security-Stack-Up.xhtml

 

[deepak.krishnan]

But some of the site reviews showed that Vista was much more safer than Linux and Mac(I dont remember which site. But I will try to provide the link later)

 

[freebird]

the same codebase as what earlier windows are based on vista too is dependent on.the simple answer is UNIX is very much diffrnt than DOS
firstly may i quote from *www.linuxquestions.org/questions/showthread.php?p=2313208#post2313208

Ah Security...
Windows is a black box. You don't know what's inside. If you trust Microsoft, you can feel secure. I don't and I wouldn't advise any business to trust it. I don't want to report anything to Microsoft and I don't want Microsoft to manage my data behind the door.
Openess is security. Linux belongs to you, you can see what it does to your data and that is what is making you or your business secure. You can encrypt your filesystem if you want, you can manage rights the way you want at any level, you can do anything you are free.
If there is a bug that may corrupt your data, you can fix it.
If there is a hole thta a hacker may exploit, you can fix it.

That's not the case of Windows. Don't trust Microsoft, don't store any confidential data in .doc format. Trust only yourself, that is the only way to be secure

why Linux +++ in security
*en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Windows_and_Linux#Security
All Myth buster solver about Linux like the increasing Linux pcs more viruses are FLOP...just read this though a lil old:

Busting The Myths
Myth: There's Safety In Small Numbers

Perhaps the most oft-repeated myth regarding Windows vs. Linux security is the claim that Windows has more incidents of viruses, worms, Trojans and other problems because malicious hackers tend to confine their activities to breaking into the software with the largest installed base. This reasoning is applied to defend Windows and Windows applications. Windows dominates the desktop; therefore Windows and Windows applications are the focus of the most attacks, which is why you don't see viruses, worms and Trojans for Linux. While this may be true, at least in part, the intentional implication is not necessarily true: That Linux and Linux applications are no more secure than Windows and Windows applications, but Linux is simply too trifling a target to bother attacking.

Windows Design

Viruses, Trojans and other malware make it onto Windows desktops for a number of reasons familiar to Windows and foreign to Linux:

1. Windows has only recently evolved from a single-user design to a multi-user model
2. Windows is monolithic, not modular, by design
3. Windows depends too heavily on an RPC model
4. Windows focuses on its familiar graphical desktop interface
..............
Linux Design

According to the Summer 2004 Evans Data Linux Developers Survey, 93% of Linux developers have experienced two or fewer incidents where a Linux machine was compromised. Eighty-seven percent had experienced only one such incident, and 78% have never had a cracker break into a Linux machine. In the few cases where intruders succeeded, the primary cause was inadequately configured security settings.

More relevant to this discussion, however, is the fact that 92% of those surveyed have never experienced a virus, Trojan, or other malware infection on Linux.

Viruses, Trojans and other malware rarely, if ever, manage to infect Linux systems, in part because:

1. Linux is based on a long history of well fleshed-out multi-user design
2. Linux is mostly modular by design
3. Linux does not depend upon RPC to function, and services are usually configured not to use RPC by default
4. Linux servers are ideal for headless non-local administration

*www.theregister.co.uk/security/security_report_windows_vs_linux/#myth1

A picture wise explain is here:
*blogs.zdnet.com/threatchaos/?p=311
and finally:
*whylinuxisbetter.net