, 2004-09-30
In the age old battle between open source and closed source operating systems and applications, can either of them really be considered more secure than the other?
Expand all |
Post comment
One Definite Benefit
2004-10-04
SFN (1 replies)
SFN (1 replies)
One Definite Benefit - What???
2004-10-04
Anon (1 replies)
Anon (1 replies)
Open Source Versus Closed Source Security
2004-10-05
Paul Kosinski (1 replies)
Paul Kosinski (1 replies)
On a side note, MS doesn't fix some of their issues, they choose to avoid it by turning off those features. But I suppose they're trying.
Whoever stated that MS source, please don't use MS funded studies to make an argument. Use third-party ones that aren't hosted and paid for by MS. Read both sides of the fence if you have to. That will give you a far more better picture than believing dribble made by a company and its own products.
The only two open-source OS that are serious about security is Adamantix (Linux) and OpenBSD (BSD).
I believe most open-source OSs should follow their models in terms of auditing and maintenance. The more constant effort one puts in, the better it is.
Instead of writing code "that just works". Write code that considers security issues...A properly coded app that is designed with security in mind is far better than some app that requires the endless battle of patching/fixes.
[ reply ]
Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/columns/269/28669#28669