> It takes more work/skill to secure Linux than it does to secure > Windows XP. Hence there are probably more secure XP installations > out there than Linux boxes.
Secure has different definitions in *nix and MS Windows. For instance, Microsoft does not consider local exploits to be real security flaws. Google for "shatter attack". Also, if you find a way to turn off the administrative SMB/CIFS share(s) under XP without disabling SMB/CIFS all together, please let me know. It was possible under Win2k, but now the administrative share(s) are better hidden and (as far as I can tell) not easily disabled without disabling all of the MS SMB/CIFS client functionality along with the SMB/CIFS server fuctionality. -Karl
