Open source vs. Windows: security debate rages
Source: ComputerWorld - Posted by Benjamin D. Thomas   
Security It's a topic of fierce debate among high-tech cognoscenti: What's more secure -- "open source" code such as Linux and Apache, or proprietary "closed source" operating systems and applications, Microsoft's in particular? The regularity with which Microsoft has taken to announcing vulnerabilities and consequent software fixes has left few cheering about its security. In contrast, high expectations endure for open source, with proponents arguing that it's inherently more secure because a much larger set of developers can read the code, vet it and correct problems.

"Discovery is different in the open source and closed source approach," Jollans says. "Because source code is visible to lots of people, if there is a security issue, it tends to be spotted earlier. The open source community isn't shy about criticizing bad code." He added that a version of Linux, SuSE Enterprise Server 9, in March became the first to earn the government-approved International Common Criteria certification for security level 4, comparable to what Microsoft achieved with Windows Server 2000 in security test reviews three years ago.

Read this full article at ComputerWorld

Only registered users can write comments.
Please login or register.

Powered by AkoComment!