[CS-FSLUG] Five Linux Security Myths You Can Live Without

[Josiah Ritchie]

On Sun, 2005-04-24 at 20:40 -0400, Don Parris wrote:
> But even at the basic level, you're
> probably more secure than WinXP (I don't know about how it compares
> before and after SP2).

I don't think this is accurate after SP2. My experience with it suggests
a solid firewall that is reasonably secure considering it is mostly
automated. Flexibility is near zilch, but a home user doesn't need much
more than that.

MS is getting better in the security field. 98se has no hope as it will
never get these upgrades. XP has improved significantly. They realize it
is neccesary to squash the security issue now that Linux has brought the
true nature of it to light. It may not be too little to late. 2003
server is much more solid. Each shutdown requires a record for the
reason, the web browser is locked out of all pages by default and no
service is automatically started without specific need. These are all
significant improvements over 2000 server. 

Don't worry, I still prefer Linux. I just don't want us to base
decisions on outdated information. The windows crowd does enough of that
for the both of us. :-)

JSR/