Comments on: Microsoft’s Security Claims Don’t Stand Up to Scrutiny http://www.linuxloop.com/news/2008/02/03/microsofts-security-claims-dont-stand-up-to-scrutiny/ Keeping you in the loop with up-to-date Linux news. Sun, 20 Jul 2008 22:02:57 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: William http://www.linuxloop.com/news/2008/02/03/microsofts-security-claims-dont-stand-up-to-scrutiny/#comment-1169 William Thu, 07 Feb 2008 03:44:16 +0000 http://www.linuxloop.com/news/2008/02/03/microsofts-security-claims-dont-stand-up-to-scrutiny/#comment-1169 "....you could also argue that the Ubuntu developers have had more time to fix vulnerabilities." A good point - thanks for that! :-) “….you could also argue that the Ubuntu developers have had more time to fix vulnerabilities.”

A good point - thanks for that! :-)

]]> By: InTheLoop http://www.linuxloop.com/news/2008/02/03/microsofts-security-claims-dont-stand-up-to-scrutiny/#comment-1168 InTheLoop Thu, 07 Feb 2008 02:45:39 +0000 http://www.linuxloop.com/news/2008/02/03/microsofts-security-claims-dont-stand-up-to-scrutiny/#comment-1168 William - On the other hand, however, you could also argue that the Ubuntu developers have had more time to fix vulnerabilities. Anyway, here are links to the data for each from 2008 so far: Ubuntu 6.06 - http://secunia.com/product/10611/?task=statistics_2008 Vista - http://secunia.com/product/13223/?task=statistics_2008 Only about a month might not be very representative, but you can get to all the data from those links, so use whatever range you think is best. William - On the other hand, however, you could also argue that the Ubuntu developers have had more time to fix vulnerabilities. Anyway, here are links to the data for each from 2008 so far:

Ubuntu 6.06 - http://secunia.com/product/10611/?task=statistics_2008
Vista - http://secunia.com/product/13223/?task=statistics_2008

Only about a month might not be very representative, but you can get to all the data from those links, so use whatever range you think is best.

]]> By: William http://www.linuxloop.com/news/2008/02/03/microsofts-security-claims-dont-stand-up-to-scrutiny/#comment-1161 William Wed, 06 Feb 2008 21:09:57 +0000 http://www.linuxloop.com/news/2008/02/03/microsofts-security-claims-dont-stand-up-to-scrutiny/#comment-1161 Regarding the comments about Vista not being around in 2003: Doesn't this just make the argument even MORE compelling that (Ubuntu in this case) has had a better proven track record for a lower number of Extremely/Highly critical vulnerabilities and fixes supplied? That Vista has had a higher percentage of Extremely/Highly critical vulnerabilities in it's short tenure thus far (compared with an older apparently 'less secure' linux distro), certainly doesn't bode well. I'm sure if InTheLoop did the same date span with XP, then the only difference would be that the gap (gulf) between the two would be wider? Regarding the comments about Vista not being around in 2003: Doesn’t this just make the argument even MORE compelling that (Ubuntu in this case) has had a better proven track record for a lower number of Extremely/Highly critical vulnerabilities and fixes supplied?

That Vista has had a higher percentage of Extremely/Highly critical vulnerabilities in it’s short tenure thus far (compared with an older apparently ‘less secure’ linux distro), certainly doesn’t bode well.

I’m sure if InTheLoop did the same date span with XP, then the only difference would be that the gap (gulf) between the two would be wider?

]]> By: InTheLoop http://www.linuxloop.com/news/2008/02/03/microsofts-security-claims-dont-stand-up-to-scrutiny/#comment-1097 InTheLoop Mon, 04 Feb 2008 21:37:41 +0000 http://www.linuxloop.com/news/2008/02/03/microsofts-security-claims-dont-stand-up-to-scrutiny/#comment-1097 The data is from 2003 to current, so it is true that Ubuntu 6.06 has been around longer, but that could go both ways. gizmo - What do you mean by that? Andrea - Another good point, which just makes the argument more convincing, although I am not sure if Securnia counts vulnerabilities in included software. The data is from 2003 to current, so it is true that Ubuntu 6.06 has been around longer, but that could go both ways.

gizmo - What do you mean by that?

Andrea - Another good point, which just makes the argument more convincing, although I am not sure if Securnia counts vulnerabilities in included software.

]]> By: Andrea http://www.linuxloop.com/news/2008/02/03/microsofts-security-claims-dont-stand-up-to-scrutiny/#comment-1092 Andrea Mon, 04 Feb 2008 10:28:48 +0000 http://www.linuxloop.com/news/2008/02/03/microsofts-security-claims-dont-stand-up-to-scrutiny/#comment-1092 I think that you should consider that vulnerabilities are accounted for linux including all applications supported by the distro, which is a lot of software, doing much more than what windows does by itself. I think that you should consider that vulnerabilities are accounted for linux including all applications supported by the distro, which is a lot of software, doing much more than what windows does by itself.

]]> By: gizmo http://www.linuxloop.com/news/2008/02/03/microsofts-security-claims-dont-stand-up-to-scrutiny/#comment-1087 gizmo Mon, 04 Feb 2008 07:45:02 +0000 http://www.linuxloop.com/news/2008/02/03/microsofts-security-claims-dont-stand-up-to-scrutiny/#comment-1087 Could you post this at zdnet.com? Could you post this at zdnet.com?

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.linuxloop.com/news/2008/02/03/microsofts-security-claims-dont-stand-up-to-scrutiny/#comment-1086 Anonymous Mon, 04 Feb 2008 06:50:26 +0000 http://www.linuxloop.com/news/2008/02/03/microsofts-security-claims-dont-stand-up-to-scrutiny/#comment-1086 2003 ? there was no vista 2003 ? there was no vista

]]> By: Ummm.. http://www.linuxloop.com/news/2008/02/03/microsofts-security-claims-dont-stand-up-to-scrutiny/#comment-1085 Ummm.. Mon, 04 Feb 2008 05:55:29 +0000 http://www.linuxloop.com/news/2008/02/03/microsofts-security-claims-dont-stand-up-to-scrutiny/#comment-1085 Not to quibble, but technically Vista was not around in 2003 for general consumption. So I'd have to say the graphs are worthless of the data is based on that fact. Not to quibble, but technically Vista was not around in 2003 for general consumption. So I’d have to say the graphs are worthless of the data is based on that fact.

]]>