|
Users get to the root of Linux security holes |
|
|
|
Source: SearchOpenSource - Posted by Pax Dickinson
|
IT pro Sid Boyce said he did not believe that, in his own words, "the wet-finger-in-the-wind analysis" applies to Linux as it does with Windows.
Boyce, a retired IBM/Amdahl mainframe tech support specialist, said the assumption that Linux was just as prone to attacks as Windows because it ran on a PC is incorrect.
"I'm not saying Linux isn't vulnerable, but to compare it in the same light as Windows is a gross distortion," Boyce said.
Boyce said it would be disingenuous to compare the two because even with a larger installed base Linux would still not have a "magical number" of users that would attract the attention of virus writers.
Canfield also noted this distinction. He said a major difference between the two is that Windows is the target of automated systems, while Linux is the target of human beings.
"Windows malware is everywhere; Linux hackers pick their targets," he said.
For this reason, both agreed, a firewall is more important in Linux than in Windows. A tool to monitor network traffic for malicious attacks makes sense in Linux.
Read this full article at SearchOpenSource
Powered by AkoComment! |
