From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 2 17:42:24 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 79F7F16A4CF for ; Tue, 2 Nov 2004 17:42:24 +0000 (GMT) Received: from www.wcborstel.nl (wcborstel.demon.nl [82.161.134.53]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B923F43D45 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 2004 17:42:23 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jorn@wcborstel.nl) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by www.wcborstel.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82F3A41F0; Tue, 2 Nov 2004 18:42:17 +0100 (CET) Received: from www.wcborstel.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (www.wcborstel.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 14198-04; Tue, 2 Nov 2004 18:42:17 +0100 (CET) Received: from www.wcborstel.nl (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by www.wcborstel.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id E655D41E7; Tue, 2 Nov 2004 18:42:16 +0100 (CET) From: "Jorn Argelo" To: Richard Cotrina , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 18:42:16 +0100 Message-Id: <20041102173545.M67685@wcborstel.nl> In-Reply-To: <20041102120139.U70884@kheops.speedy.net.pe> References: <20041102120139.U70884@kheops.speedy.net.pe> X-Mailer: Open WebMail 2.41 20040926 X-OriginatingIP: 82.161.134.53 (jorn) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at mail.wcborstel.nl 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 17:42:24 -0000 On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 12:12:54 -0500 (PET), 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. I personally don't feel that any OS is safer then the other. It's just what the administrator does. A Linux guru can't secure a Windows machine as good as a Windows guru can, and vica versa. One can say that a particular OS attracks more experienced administrators. Perhaps. But again it's the administrator which is the crucial fact of an OS being secure or not. It's rather easy to say that Windows is less secure then Linux or BSD because there are more viruses/exploits for Window. Well, I think that services like Sendmail and Apache can contain more exploits then Windows, to be honest. Of course, I can't prove anything, but that's just my personal feeling about it. Cheers, Jorn