Dan Jenkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: >I can configure FOSS products to be as insecure as the worst Microsoft >issues. I can configure Microsoft products to be almost as secure as the >best FOSS products. (I still think FOSS has the edge there, due to their >flexibility and accessibility.)
I think Dan has hit the crux of the issue. Either Micro$oft or FOSS products can be configured to be more or less secure or insecure. Questions that need to be considered are, how do they rate on security right out of the box without any special configuration effort? How do they rate on ease of proper configuration? And how does the overall profile of the aggregate installed base compare? Intuitive gut feeling I have is that M$ are not particularly secure right out of the box, take some effort to configure properly, and that overall the installed base is not very secure because the average user does not do anything except install the product. OTOH the FOSS products may be somewhat better about security and configuration ease, and definitely seem to have a user community that is more likely to take some pains to secure their installations, so the overall FOSS profile is probably significantly more secure than the overall M$ community. That's all just subjective speculation absent hard data however. Just MHO, FWIW. -Bruce McCulley freelance CISSP _______________________________________________ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
