This post originated from an RSS feed registered with .NET Buzz by Peter G Provost. Original Post: Linux and Windows Feed Title: Peter Provost's Geek Noise Feed URL: /error.aspx?aspxerrorpath=/Rss.aspx Feed Description: Technology news, development articles, Microsoft .NET, and other stuff... Latest .NET Buzz Posts Latest .NET Buzz Posts by Peter G Provost Latest Posts From Peter Provost's Geek Noise

In my last post I mentioned a study that claimed Linux servers are more successfully breached than Windows servers. One person commented:

"Secure" is in the hands of the admin. While I don't personally believe that it's possible to make a Windows box as secure as a *nix box in some cases (<IIS6 security model, too much registry surfing vs. test config files, etc), it's certainly possible to keep out the bad guys with good security practices regardless of the OS.

I agree that regardless of the system, security is in the hands of the sysadmin. I remember a few years back when a fresh new RedHat system had a typical half-life of less than an hour before a root kit was installed.

That said, I guess my reason for posting this was to point out that it is not ONLY Windows systems that are insecure. A lot of people like to say inane things like "Linux is more secure than Windows," which is a bunch of crap.

A linux machine that is not taken care of is insecure. A Windows machine that is not taken care of is insecure. A BSD system  that is not taken care of is insecure.

If you don't lock your front door, don't complain when someone breaks into your house.