Most Unsecure OS? Yep -- it is Linux!

www.wininformant.com ^ | 1/13/03 | Paul Thurott

[SpinyNorman]

The Aberdeen Group is lulling unwary Windows users into a false sense of security with their flawed analysis. Counting advisories is not the way to determine which platform is most vulnerable.

That reminds me of the Consumer Reports vehicle ratings where everything from a blown bulb to a failed alternator is lumped together under "Electrical problems" with no indication of the relative severities. Lies, damn lies, and statistics.........

But back to OSes: everyone would be best served by assuming that no system is safe, and taking appropriate measures to minimize exposure.

[Havoc]

I think Bush2000 already posted this and took a wallupin over it sometime ago.

[palmer]

However, Trojan horse-based attacks on Linux, UNIX, and open-source projects jumped from one in 2001 to two in 2002. The Aberdeen Group says this information proves that Linux and UNIX are just as prone to Trojan horse attacks as any other OS,

Seems like awfully small numbers to prove anything.

[Bush2000]

The Aberdeen Group is lulling unwary Windows users into a false sense of security with their flawed analysis.

Flawed? How so, Hal?

[ikka]

Because you're a dedicated ABMer who doesn't serve MS customers.

My biggest customer who is switching has been pro-MS since forever.

He sold DOS 3.3 solutions, did the TeleMagic sales automation VAR thing, dBase III and later FoxPro. Currently ALL his custom-programmed, dynamic sites are either ASP or ColdFusion running on NT.

He has seen the writing on the wall and knows his business will be better once he has switched because Linux lets him offer a better SOLUTION to his web hosting customers.

[Bush2000]

... running on NT

No wonder. It's 8 years old, for chrissake...

[Redcloak]

Did a quick google search on Thurott. He's got a dog in this fight, that's for sure.

The Aberdeen Group also seems to have quite a lot of cross-fertilization going on with MSFT. Google turned up roughly the same number of pages on MSFT's site referencing Aberdeen as on Aberdeen's site referencing MSFT.

[2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten]

Thanks, I had the idea that there was something going on between Aberdeen and MSFT but couldn't document it. Looks like you found it.

[Redcloak]

I'll admit that I didn't read all 300+ MSFT items on the Aberdeen site, but the vast majority look to be of the "Rah! Rah! Redmond!!" variety.

[Bogey78O]

Oh Jesus Christ.....
I'm laughing so hard it hurts... Smeagol!!!!!!! You've got to ping me more often.

[ikka]

No wonder. It's 8 years old

NT 4.0 came out in September 1996. September 1996 + 8 years would be sometime in 2004.

Anyways, the reason that he is changing is that he is tired of worrying about IIS flaws, tired of worrying about DLL memory leaks, and would have to re-learn large chunks of administration if he went with Win2k or XP.

Instead, he can learn Linux, once, and use it for the next 10 years, knowing that whatever hardware hits the market, his Apache modules and SQL code will continue working. And that is what it is all about.

[Bush2000]

The Aberdeen Group also seems to have quite a lot of cross-fertilization going on with MSFT. Google turned up roughly the same number of pages on MSFT's site referencing Aberdeen as on Aberdeen's site referencing MSFT.

Links on webpages is all you have?!?

[Redcloak]

Yup, 300+ on each site referencing the other. That was just on Google. Sorry, but I don't have a Lexis-Nexus account. I'm sure that there are more connections between the two; I just don't have time to hunt them all down for you.

[Bush2000]

I'm shocked that anyone would reference content on the the number one software company in the world's website. It's unthinkable. /NOT

[Redcloak]

It's not the 300+ references to MSFT on Aberdeen's site that got my attention so much as the near matching number of pages referencing Aberdeen on the MSFT site.

[Bush2000]

It's not the 300+ references to MSFT on Aberdeen's site that got my attention so much as the near matching number of pages referencing Aberdeen on the MSFT site.

It surprises you that MSFT links to external studies and reviews of its products? This is a common industry practice. Try going to Oracle or Sun or Cisco or any of a thousand different vendors and you'll see references to external articles and studies. It boggles the mind how you guys can attribute that to some kind of relationship.

[Redcloak]

That's not surprising at all. Of course companies reference favorable articles from sites like Aberdeen's. It's just that MSFT looks to be citing everything Aberdeen has ever written about them! In other words, everything on the Aberdeen site looks to be of the "Rah! Rah! Redmond!!" variety. That such an organization would go on to wave its pom-poms one more time and call Linux "the most unsecure OS" is predictable.

[Bush2000]

Yeah, God forbid anyone should actually find Redmond's products useful. Funny how anything which doesn't tow your ABM party line is somehow "suspect" while those that don't are patted on the back. Predictable nonsense.