Windows: fewer security flaws
p2p news / p2pnet: Linux and Unix aficianados aren’t going to believe this, but Windows had far fewer security vulnerabilities in 2005.
Or so says the US Computer Emergency Readiness Team (CERT) annual year-end security index.
The total of 5,198 reported vulnerabilities breaks down like this:
- 812 Windows operating system vulnerabilities;
- 2,328 Unix/Linux operating vulnerabilities;
- 2,058 Multiple operating system vulnerabilities.
However, as The Register sums it up, "Despite posting fewer vulnerabilities than its Unix and Linux challengers and Microsoft going out its way to talk up its ‘progress’ in security in 2005, it is attacks on Windows that still cause more concern and generate most headlines.
"The reason is that, unlike Linux, Windows has greater potential to cause harm because of its presence on desktops in the hands of users who receive self-propagating worms, click on email attachments and download malicious code. And while it seems just as each hole is fixed, a new vulnerability is unlocked elsewhere in the vast Windows code base."
Truer words were never written.
Microsoft has today released a patch for one of the year’s most dangerous Microsoft security holes.
Or as TechWorld points out, the statistics don’t necessarily reflect the overall security of the platform.
"For example," it says, "the Linux/Unix figures include large numbers of updated vulnerability advisories, while the Windows list includes only a handful of updates.
"The raw figures also don’t indicate the impact of a flaw. No Unix/Linux/Mac bug has caused anywhere near the panic currently being generated by the unpatched WMF flaw in Windows, partly because of Windows’ near-complete dominance of the desktop PC market."
Also See:
CERT – Cyber Security Bulletin 2005 Summary, December 29, 2005
The Register – Windows beats Linux / Unix on vulnerabilities – CERT, January 5, 2006
most dangerous – ‘Critical’ Microsoft WMF flaw fix, January 6, 2005
TechWorld – Flaws in Windows trail behind open source vulnerabilities, January 6, 2005
January 6th, 2006 at 2:13 pm
1. Most of the Linux flaws for *nix are minor in comparison to the Windows flaws
2. The *nix flaws come from a wide variety of operating systems from a wide selection of vendors such as BSD, Linux, Solaris, etc. All of these flaws are totalled and group together for the specific purpose of makeing one specific company (Microsoft) look good.
3. These “Operating system” flaws also include flaws in applications that are not operating system specific.
Which company’s operating systems spread the most viruses, trojans, worms, and other malware? You guessed it Microsoft!!!! Yes, Linux/Unix may look worse statistically, but Windows looks worse in real life!!!!
January 6th, 2006 at 2:55 pm
I mostly agree with you, but I don’t think the number of Linux flaws is that big.
First of all, WTF? There is no f*cking way there can be that many flaws in the Linux kernel. Not by a long shot. In external software yes, but in the kernel, the part that *is* Linux, there surely can’t be that many flaws. External software shouldn’t count, only the operating system itself, the kernel. If you count the thousands of programs included together with the kernel on standard distributions, no wonder you find flaws. But the kernel itself: Nope. It’s safe compared to other OSs. Even safer than *BSD kernels if you enable the SELinux (Security Enhanced) modules.