> Presuming of course that the server is set up to be secure. All of those > OSes can have large gaping holes in their security caused both by > admin user action and inaction.
If you were to chose a server for your bank to use would you prefer it had 5 to 10 vulnerabilities a year of which 1 or 2 were remote exploits or would you rather it has 30 to 50 of which 15 to 20 were remote exploits ? Then would you rather they ran software on top which opened up 1 or 2 more holes or would you rather they ran stuff that opened 100s of holes ? Less vulnerabilities means less downtime, less maintainence and less mistakes. Also I think you'll find that some of the BSD UNIX have had 0 remote exploits, and only 2 or 3 local exploits in the past few years. You can't expect administrators to cover up for every hole, especially when the holes aren't disclosed for months at a time, worse still you can't go patching production servers every other week - production servers by nature should have no downtime - Microsoft patches mean rebooting and repatching your 'production' servers every few weeks. Also the easier it is to secure a server - the more likely it is to be so. Would you rather have a production server that requires registry tweaks and 3 days of patching to be secure or a server that is secure out-of-the-box (OpenBSD, TrustedLinux, AS/400) or can be totally secured during installation (bastile, debian, suse, even redhat). So I'll repeat it - Windows is not suitable for production servers. Regardless of how good your sysadmins are, it is better to start with a more secure foundation than to use an insecure platform and hope you can plaster the cracks and patch it quicker than it is hacked. A. -- Aaron J Trevena, BSc (Hons) www.head2head.co.uk Internet Application Developer Perl, UNIX, IIS/ASP _______________________________________________ Perl-Win32-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe: http://listserv.ActiveState.com/mailman/mysubs
