, 2002-05-15
Unix and Linux security owes much to openness and public disclosure, but Microsoft is too far gone for sunshine to do any good.
Expand all |
Post comment
...Until Microsoft redesigns from the ground up
2002-05-16
Matthew Kauffman (2 replies)
Matthew Kauffman (2 replies)
...Until Microsoft redesigns from the ground up
2002-05-16
Anonymous (2 replies)
Anonymous (2 replies)
...Until Microsoft redesigns from the ground up
2002-05-20
manually adding html tags to be safe (1 replies)
manually adding html tags to be safe (1 replies)
Memo to Microsoft: Stay Secretive, Please
2002-05-16
Not Really Anonymous (1 replies)
Not Really Anonymous (1 replies)
Memo to Microsoft: Stay Secretive, Please
2002-05-17
blane (1 replies)
blane (1 replies)
Another Linux/Unix Apologist Overlooks the Obvious
2002-05-16
Anonymous (7 replies)
Anonymous (7 replies)
Another Linux/Unix Apologist Overlooks the Obvious
2002-05-17
Anonymous (1 replies)
Anonymous (1 replies)
Another Linux/Unix Apologist Overlooks the Obvious
2002-05-17
Anonymous Unix Gal (1 replies)
Anonymous Unix Gal (1 replies)
insecurity at the OS level? I see the problems at the
application level many times, but so do I for Unices and
Linux.
To clarify, my question is pointed at the server offerings
from Microsoft, not the desktop ones. Even all the 'Hack-
ing Exposed' books admit that the only problem with Micro-
soft server offerings with regard to security is having an
inexperienced admin working with it. Each of W2K and Unix
administered by competent admins would yield secure systems
according to this widely respected publication.
Your thoughts?
[ reply ]
Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/columns/82/12705#12705