, SecurityFocus 2001-04-12
Redmond's security response chief warns the RSA Conference of the perils of open source.
Expand all |
Post comment
Security under MS products VS. Linux, *BSD
2001-04-12
giard.pascal (at) teccart.qc (dot) ca [email concealed]
giard.pascal (at) teccart.qc (dot) ca [email concealed]
Closed source more secure? Really?
2001-04-13
counter_counterinsurgency (at) nospam.hotmail (dot) com [email concealed]
counter_counterinsurgency (at) nospam.hotmail (dot) com [email concealed]
Is Microsoft code more secure than open alternatives?
2001-04-13
Larry Fahnoe <fahnoe (at) FahnoeTech (dot) com [email concealed]>
Larry Fahnoe <fahnoe (at) FahnoeTech (dot) com [email concealed]>
Microsoft: Closed source is more secure FSVO secure
2001-04-13
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <shmuel (at) acm (dot) org [email concealed]> (2 replies)
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <shmuel (at) acm (dot) org [email concealed]> (2 replies)
Closed source burdened by "boring, expensive" QA
2001-04-16
counter_counterinsurgency (at) nospam.hotmail (dot) com [email concealed]
counter_counterinsurgency (at) nospam.hotmail (dot) com [email concealed]
Microsoft: Closed source is more secure FSVO secure
2001-04-17
bassethound2 (at) yahoo (dot) com [email concealed]
bassethound2 (at) yahoo (dot) com [email concealed]
Open vs. closed not necessarily it....
2001-04-16
abostaph (at) usa (dot) net [email concealed] (1 replies)
abostaph (at) usa (dot) net [email concealed] (1 replies)
Open vs. closed not necessarily it....
2001-04-16
Microsoft Defender (2 replies)
Microsoft Defender (2 replies)
Open vs. closed not necessarily it....
2001-04-18
abostaph (at) usa (dot) net [email concealed] (1 replies)
abostaph (at) usa (dot) net [email concealed] (1 replies)
Security Vulnerability Open Source vs Closed Source
2001-04-17
Rod <snaketails (at) optushome.com (dot) au [email concealed]>
Rod <snaketails (at) optushome.com (dot) au [email concealed]>
who gets cracked more?
2001-04-18
TauRine (1 replies)
TauRine (1 replies)
A major reason that linux bugs are more often discovered than windows bugs is simply because linux is open sourced. the facts are that it's much more simple for people to grep through c++ code looking for buffer overflows than it is to dissassemble a program.
that is not to say that open source is any less secure by any means, it only means that holes are quickly discovered and patched. It's naive to believe that M$ code is anymore secure than linux simply by judging with the amount of bugs found in each one. God only knows how many bugs lie waiting to be discovered in M$ products. The major difference that I can see, is that open source products are continuously evolving and improving while windows tends to sit around and wait for the damage to be done before making any fixes.
[ reply ]
Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/articles/191/5338#5338