Point taken; bkfsec, Michael, Valdis.
Statistics are just that. There may be a better crafted comparison
between the webservers than Secunia vulnerabilities.
I think we're in agreement that an administrator has to be familiar with
securing that particular OS.
Bill Stout
-----Original Message-----
From: bkfsec [mailto:bkfsec@sdf.lonestar.org]
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 12:34 PM
To: Bill Stout
Cc: full-disclosure@lists.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] What is wrong with schools these days?
Bill Stout wrote:
You know, having made a few NTexploit lists in the past, I wanted to
make the point the M$ was less secure. Unfortunately the facts were
against me.
Two IIS 6.0 vulnerabilities reported from 2003-2006
http://secunia.com/product/1438/
Twenty-eight Apache 2.0 vulnerabilities reported from 2003-2006
http://secunia.com/product/73/
Paul is right.
I would never suggest a Windows admin use UNIX, or visa-versa. A
product is only as secure as it's configured.
Facts and statistics are two different things, my friend.
I'm not saying that Paul's specifically wrong... he's not. Just that
those statistics aren't the end of the road for the "facts". Lots of
other factors play into things.
What I usually say is that if run by a clueful administrator with an eye
to system audit, control, and security, a Free Software system _can_ be
made more secure than a proprietary system, particularly a Microsoft
based solution.
Now, given equal setup time, resources, and management backing for the
project -- well, that may be a different story. But you can't blame the
*nix systems for being hamstrung by a lack of resources. :)
I stand by that statement. And would happily point out that if you run
any system without configuring it with an eye to security, you're
probably going to have a problem.
-bkfsec
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
