I think this is an academic debate if GNU/Linux is more secured or not. For the simple people, let us look at the facts:
1. When was the last time any of this list members has seen a virus in his GNU/Linux desktop? (I guess the answer is never) 2. When was the last time you had a spyware in your desktop? (again the answer is never) So the end result is: GNU/LINUX IS MORE SECURED. There is a question wether in the future there will be viruses or spywares, this is a real question (my opinion is no, there won't be). We don't know the future of Micro$oft OS either, will Longhorn be more secured? So for the time being Open source desktop is far more secured then XP desktop. -- Ori Idan Tzahi Fadida wrote: >I think that something is misunderstood here. If you have a closed >source, that does not mean that you cannot find bugs to >exploit looking at the binaries. Those that are in the know, >knows ( :) ) its not that hard once enough time is invested. > >OTOH if you have an open source software you can take a list >of known code abuses and go thru the code and fix them. >The problem is, that not everyone knows how to do that >and thus again here open source stands out where anyone >can see the code. With closed source you have to rely on the >sole source creators - the owners. > >I definitely believe that open source is more secured, but its >more relative then just saying that. I.e. only when the software >is exposed enough in the community will it get the appropriate >attention to fix its flaws. >I.e. I will only compare security between closed and open source >software with the same level of exposure. > >Regards, > tzahi. > > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adir Abraham >>Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 1:21 PM >>To: Dan Kaspi >>Cc: linux-il@linux.org.il >>Subject: Re: Moving to Linux >> >> >>On Sun, 8 May 2005, Dan Kaspi wrote: >> >> >> >>>this can be easiy changed; moreover, he claimed that since >>> >>> >>Linux is an >> >> >>>open >>>source, >>>maybe it is even easier to develop viruses/spyware to it. >>> >>> >>In this point >> >> >>>I did not know what to answer him. I am not a >>>security expert; it could be that he is right in this point. >>> >>> >>There have been a lot of debates whether open-source is more >>secured than >>close-source. I'll give you a short quote from one of the >>famous articles >>out there ( >>http://www.dwheeler.com/secure-programs/Secure-Programs-HOWTO. >> >> >html chapter >2.4: "Is Open Source Good for Security?"): > >" Elias Levy (Aleph1) is the former moderator of one of the most popular > >security discussion groups - Bugtraq. He discusses some of the problems >in >making open source software secure in his article "Is Open Source Really > >More Secure than Closed?". His summary is: > > 'So does all this mean Open Source Software is no better than >closed >source software when it comes to security vulnerabilities? No. Open >Source >Software certainly does have the potential to be more secure than its >closed source counterpart. But make no mistake, simply being open source > >is no guarantee of security.' " > >Regards, > > Adir. > >================================================================= >To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word >"unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo >unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > >================================================================= >To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with >the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command >echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > ================================================================= To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
