I beg to differ. When it comes to security, the theory that you should
stick with what you know is easy to prove false.
The number of people that can install an NT Server with IIS is far
larger than the number of people who can install OpenBSD. Still, the
number of break-ins is also much larger for WinNT.
A few facts:
13% of all running web servers are Windows NT
12% of all running web servers are Free/Net/OpenBSD
http://leb.net/hzo/ioscount/data/r.9904.www.txt
61% of all web server break-ins are Windows NT
0.08% of all web server break-ins are OpenBSD
http://www.attrition.org/mirror/attrition/os.html
I would say that you could learn to install a secure OpenBSD machine
in a tenth of the time it takes to learn Firewall-1. You could
probably teach a chimpanzee to install it. Just hit Enter a dozen
times and you're done. It's "secure by default!" Or get a copy of
"Building Linux and OpenBSD Firewalls."
Amanda.
On Fri, 21 Jul 2000, Jack Coates wrote:
> OpenBSD's reputation precedes it, though I haven't had a chance to play
> around yet. As long as the system is capable of handling the basic
> requirements of performance and security, an admin should use what they're
> more comfortable with -- an experienced NT admin could spend a lot of time
> with his/her nose in a manual while the fancy new *nix box gets eaten
> alive by script kiddies.
================================================================================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, please see the instructions at
http://www.checkpoint.com/services/mailing.html
================================================================================
