Why Windows is less secure than Linux

[Canadian*Sniper]

Here's Linux running Apache


And here's Windows running ISS


gg next map

[RocketGuy]

What about Windows running Apache?

[foq]

what do those pics mean..?

[Baker]

It's an illustration of how Windows is an unorganized clusterfmess of an operating system (which isn't surprising) that makes system calls all over the place to perform operations like serving a web page.

I've been using Vista 2 days now and I really don't like it. My present #1 gripe is that 95% of firewalls that are compatible with XP are not compatible with Vista and the firewall that comes with Vista pretty much is inbound only -- which I could care less about since I am using a router (which already blocks all of that).

In XP, I could right click a file like a .RAR file and extract it and when I do that in XP it doesn't even do anything.

The security in Vista mostly consists of doing 3 redundant pop-ups for any action you want to do.

And everything is dumbed down in Vista, I move my mouse over my wireless network connection and in XP it would say "Connected 44 Mbps" but in Vista it just says the name of the connection and displays some bars that look like cell phone signal bars and doesn't even have "Status" as an option.

/Bleh

[RocketGuy]

In XP, I could right click a file like a .RAR file and extract it and when I do that in Vista it doesn't even do anything.

Sounds to me like you're not qualified to use Vista
I really need to get it and try it.

[Spirit]

Uhm, since when had XP rar-support?
And how does a server "picture" tell you the security of an OS?

[Canadian*Sniper]

Windows is inherently harder to secure than Linux. There I said it. The simple truth.

Many millions of words have been written and said on this topic. I have a couple of pictures. The basic argument goes like this. In its long evolution, Windows has grown so complicated that it is harder to secure. Well these images make the point very well. Both images are a complete map of the system calls that occur when a web server serves up a single page of html with a single picture. The same page and picture. A system call is an opportunity to address memory. A hacker investigates each memory access to see if it is vulnerable to a buffer overflow attack. The developer must do QA on each of these entry points. The more system calls, the greater potential for vulnerability, the more effort needed to create secure applications.

Thanks to Sana Security for generating and providing these images.

�.�Have you mooed today?��

[Solecord]

Why is that for me? This is in regards to webservers running Windows of *nix. I've never used Windows as a webserver.... never supported Windows as a webserver...

[Canadian*Sniper]

I had to write something outside the quotes and this is your web forum

[Baker]

Uhm, since when had XP rar-support?

Well, you can right-click a RAR in non-Vista versions and click "Extract to here", for instance, and it works. In Vista, if you do that, it does nothing at all.

It may somehow be the fault of WinRAR.

[joao93]

My conclusion: Do not buy Vista

[Canadian*Sniper]

Who uses RAR anymore anyways!? (other than Entar ;P)

7z FTW

My conclusion: Do not buy Vista

linux

[foq]

Umm, torrenters all over the globe use .rar :p

[Canadian*Sniper]

All the torrents I've used are the plain ol files. I like to see what I'm downloading before I download them

[Baker]

Who uses RAR anymore anyways!? (other than Entar ;P)

7z FTW

linux

I like RAR better than 7-Zip. Mostly because 7-Zip doesn't compress very quickly and the 7-Zip GUI needs a lot of work (isn't user friendly).

WinRAR supports 7-Zip and has a better interface.

The 7-Zip format itself is outstanding, but they really need to work on GUI and some of the other ease of use niceties that WinRAR already has.