From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 2 17:31:33 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F39B416A4CE for ; Tue, 2 Nov 2004 17:31:32 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail.gmx.net (pop.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1A08243D39 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 2004 17:31:32 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from krylon@gmx.net) Received: (qmail 28174 invoked by uid 65534); 2 Nov 2004 17:31:30 -0000 Received: from i538758DE.versanet.de (EHLO [192.168.0.13]) (83.135.88.222) by mail.gmx.net (mp003) with SMTP; 02 Nov 2004 18:31:30 +0100 X-Authenticated: #685629 Message-ID: <4187C471.1050608@gmx.net> Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 18:31:29 +0100 From: Benjamin Walkenhorst User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.3 (X11/20041025) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Richard Cotrina References: <20041102120139.U70884@kheops.speedy.net.pe> In-Reply-To: <20041102120139.U70884@kheops.speedy.net.pe> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: *BSD is considered the safest OS X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 17:31:33 -0000 Richard Cotrina wrote: >Perhaps this is an old news, but it's interesting to post it to the list. > >A recent study made by MI2G, an UK company focused in data risk >security, shows that *BSD and MacOS X were the less breached OS in a >sample of more that 200K computers permanently connected to the internet. > >http://mi2g.net/cgi/mi2g/frameset.php?pageid=http%3A//mi2g.net/cgi/mi2g/press/021104.php > > heise.de questioned the credibility of the study. On the other hand they did a security survey around december 2003/january 2004, and IIRC, their results were *pretty* similar to what this study shows. I do believe, the heise-study also mentioned that BSD-systems were not only rarely attacked because of being so rare, but that the rate of successful attacks against BSD-based system was lower than with, say Linux and Windows. I for one do believe that Linux gets aways so badly not because Linux inherently insecure or "bad", but because many Linux-machines do not - that's my impression at least - receive the degree of administrative attention they would need. BSD - in my impression - attracts more experienced users/administrators than Linux, having become rather "mainstream". If you looked at the attacked Linux systems in more detail, I also assume you'd find the same to be true for Red Hat/Suse vs. Debian systems. I do believe that the same goes for windows - since it's so easy to handle, superficially, it will tend to be operated by less experienced admins in general. Just remember that all the NT-worms only got so successful because there uncounted unpatched systems out there... Kind regards, Benjamin