[QUOTE="Tezcatlipoca666"]
[QUOTE="JohnF111"] which in effect means linux and OSX are a hell of a lot more vulnerable than Windows it's just no one bothers with them much.JohnF111
Do you have any evidence that Linux is a lot more vulnerable than Windows?
Nope not a sausage, i have a lot of evidence to show that Windows has become pretty fortified and that Linux hasn't had nearly as many patches or investment in security. So which would you prefer, a platform thats been hacked and attacked since day one and given a million patches, or one that no one really bothers to patch much because it's not a target..Example:Sony didn't patch their servers because "they weren't a target of attack" - Yet they were extremely vulnerable when someone DID attack which showed that just because they hadn't been badly attacked doesn't mean you are completely secure(can be directly applied to an OS).
You have no idea what you're talking about do you? Yes, Sony was attacked, but more significantly, Sonys SQL database was attacked. Their vulnerability wasn't "extreme" as you claim, but instead their vulnerability was targeted and exploited by a very coordinated attack. Quite honestly, human error played a tremendous role in Sony being exploited to the extent that it was. If only 1 person in the 4 months port scans were being performed on their network would have check their intrusion prevention devices logs, their exploitation would have been prevented. And like I said earlier, Linux does not release security updates to their Kernal very often because those exploitation's have been resolved in previously releases of those Kernals. When Linux releases a new Kernal, it is the equivalence of Windows releasing a new OS. Its like going from XP to Vista and I assure you new Linux Kernals release much more frequently than Window's OS''s. You do realize that the very board you are typing on, a PHP board, is running on an Apache server. Well guess what, that Apache server is running on a Linux machine.
Log in to comment