Look, I'm NOT a Linux zealot, but I do read a bunch of the on-line Linux and open-source 'zines and follow some of the discussion groups. The activity related to developing patches to security holes in open-source products is quite vigerous. Clearly, the fact that the source code for open source products is available for all to see DOES have an impact, the evidence is readily apparent and well documented, including on Security Focus.

The comments by Mr. Lipner go well beyond FUD to blatent lie. To date I have not seen any study which indicates the closed source is, in fact, more or less secure than open-source. The big difference is that Microsoft does have to PAY many INTERNAL folks to perform security reviews, however, open source products habe both INTERNAL reviews by professionals at companies that produce the open source products and EXTERNAL reviews by the user community interested in such matters.

We now have the likes of IBM and the NSI interested in beefing up security on open source products such as Linux, why, because the the source is there for everyone to see and everyone benefits from such efforts.

Mr. Lipner, I know you have a job to do, but Microsoft will have to win this battle (against Linux and Open Source) on merits, not FUD.

Jim Powers

[ reply ]

Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/articles/191/5254#5254