XPost: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers, comp.sys.mac.advocacy, c   
   mp.sys.macintrash   
   XPost: microsoft.windows.crash.crash.crash   
   From: mist@cumulus.com   
      
   Tim Smith wrote:   
      
   > In article   
   > , Derek   
   > Currie wrote:   
   >   
   >>Finding the safest computer OS is more important that warz mongering. My   
   >>point stands, as does that of this news alert, no matter what mud you have   
   >>to sling at mi2g.   
   >   
   >   
   > OK, let's try it this way.  Suppose next year, in response to that Mi2G   
   > report, almost everyone switched to OS X.  So, we end up with 98% of the   
   > servers running OS X, 1% running Linux, and 1% running Windows.  Question:   
   > what would be the result?   
   >   
   > Answer: OS X would then become the most breached OS, and, according to   
   > Mi2G's methodology, the least insecure OS of the three.   
   >   
      
   One would think so, but don't you think it is more the problem of a   
   poorly designed O/S like XP than anything else?  Market share is a myth   
   when M$ is selling a poorly designed o/s.  How are the virus writers   
   going to get around a well designed o/s that has security in mind?   
      
   > *That* is why Mi2G's study is meaningless.  Total number of breaches per OS,   
   > which is what they report, tells you nothing about the security of the OSes.   
   > What you want to know (and what they leave out) is *what* *percentage* of   
   > the servers that were running each OS were breached.   
      
   Best to have them take all oses to DEFCON convention in Las Vegas and   
   let the hackers have their way the o/ses.   
   Then you'll have your answers.   
   Right now, why is it so easy for a high school student to hack into a M$   
   system?   
      
   >   
   > How many major hosting companies run OS X?  How many run Linux?  If the two   
   > OSes had the exact same level of security, Linux would suffer at least an   
   > order of magnitude more breaches, simply because there are so many more   
   > Linux servers out there.   
      
   The latest Linux kernel isn't the same as the OS X kernel.  They are   
   completely different.  The next level are the commands.  These also have   
   to pass muster.  The linux development tree and the BSD are two and   
   seperate distinct trees.   
      
   >   
   > What puzzles me is why I even need to explain this.  A report that claims   
   > Linux is massively less secure than Windows should have set off alarms for   
   > you that should have tipped you off that the study is flawed.   
      
   Agreed.  Follow the money and you'll find M$ funding it.   
   M$ is fearful of their market share.   
      
   > You should   
   > have then Googled Mi2G, and found out that they are generally considered   
   > to be somewhat of a joke among security professionals.   
   >   
      
   Could very well be.  So far as I know, SELinux from NSA is the most   
   secure as UNIX like o/ses go.  Then you have better ones.   
      
   --   
   ---------------------------------   
   Th3 G0ld3n Yrs Sux0r   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)