Third point to the correlation above: The vast majority of Windows admins
are dingbat-morons, self-proclaimed experts. Had then not been
dingbat-morons, and applied the readily available and widely announced
patches (as zealously as unix folks patch thier stuff), this'd be all
moot, and we'd all have gotten a better nights sleep.
I don't think this is fair statement either, Linux and Microsoft
have the most issues because they have the largest market share - security
by obscurity. It doesn't mean they have anymore issues than any other
vendors, success brings problems and this is one of them.
Regards,
Neil.
That's partially, but not entirely, true. I would lay money against anybody
willing to bet, that the OpenBSD project has cleaner code, with fewer bugs,
than any other OS in common use today, commercial _or_ free. Yes, the OpenBSD
project (for example) has fewer announced vulnerabilities and exploits - but
it's not due to a lack of market share. It's due to clean code.
Conversely, MS software (both OS, server and client-side) leading the way in
vulnerabilities, patches and exploits is not due entirely to market share.
Redmond has a history of releasing crap code, with security consistently
taking a backseat to featuritis and time-to-market.
This is straying off-topic, and I tend to rant on this issue, so this will be
my last post on the subject.