vlad321 said:
allenmaher said:
vlad321 said:
I am just giong to go ahead and just quote a paragraph from one of your links
"And because risk depends a lot on other factors independent of the operating system itself, the answer to the question is usually “it depends.”"
WHOA! Who could have seen that one coming, right?
|
What that you would sift through dozens of pages detailing secrity measures and comparing security of various OS's all of which speak very favourably of linux's built in security measures and then pull up and ambiguous comment and present it without context? No that is par for the course in this back and forth conversation.
Is linux secure, yes, more so than most others, yes. Are most security failures between the keyboard and the chair, yes. But that is beside the point. If your OS has fundimental security issues then it is much harder for the thing between the chair and the keyboard to keep a system secure. All other things being equal, I would perfer to work with a vetted and secure OS like the BSDs or Linux any day.
|
Security comes from one place, and one place only. The user. It doesn't matter how secure a vault can be, if the guy opening the vault makes a hole in it to get in better, it's not secure. By default, Linux can be hacked into just as commonly as the other systems. It also was the first to get hacked through in a hacking competition not too long ago (years). Let's not even get into all of the repositories of exploits to gain root.
|
Zero refrences, pure conjecture, and a lot of inflated hyperbole. One of the links above shows a recent hacking competition in which a linux derivitive was not penetrated despite considerable money on the line. If you are such a super hacker why have you not claimed the prize linked above? You sir are full of something.
