# > More likely that most folks don't know about the security holes in NT yet.
# > UNIX holes receive a fair amount of attention, which often causes a furor
# > and a fix. Microsoft remains rather tight-lipped about holes in Windows NT.
#
# I'd have to disagree with that, a hole in NT would cause just as large a
# furor
# as one in Solaris or Netware for that matter. After all it's Microsofts
# flagship
# OS. "The way of the future...". I'd certainly yell loudly.
If you knew about it. The point is that the Unix sources which formed the
basis for most commercial versions are publicly available. The community
can, has, and is reviewing those sources looking for potential vunerabilities.
Armed with a base knowledge, some then attempt to exploit them on their
favorite verions of Unix. There is no basis for this type of "research" in
NT and only after you stumble on a serious problem has any mention been
forthcoming from Microsoft.
# To decide if NT4.0 is insecure:
# What holes are in it? What holes have been patched in past versions?
# What do you have to do to a base NT system to secure it as a firewall?
# As an apps server?
# As a file Server?
#
# To decide is Unix (brand X) is insecure:
# What holes are in it? What holes have been patched in past versions?
# What do you have to do to a base Unix system to secure it as a firewall?
# As an apps server?
# As a file Server?
Please compare apples with apples. Unix has been around many years and for
the most part, developed within an open community. There will have been many
more problems in a 25 year old operating system versus a 5 (??) year old
operating system. Then there is the number of different Unix versions versus
the tightly controlled Microsoft source baseline.
# I dare say if Unix wasn't around, and Microsoft launched one of the
# early implementations of Unix as SuperNT 1.0 the general consensus would
# have been to avoid it like the plague because of it's security
# problems.
They did, remember Microsoft's Xenix.. ? ;-)
No, if Unix had not been around, the model for open OS development would
not have occurred as it did. The reality based attitude towards security
(security by obscurity versus security by evalutaion) would have been
different.
--
Kent Landfield Phone: 1-817-545-2502
The Landfield Group FAX: 1-817-545-7650
Email: kent @
landfield .
com http://www.landfield.com/
Please send comp.sources.misc related mail to kent @
uunet .
uu .
net .
References:
|
|
