“The most recent case of ignorance dressed up as expertise is a
woeful set of articles; the first appeared on silicon.com, and the
other from the hallowed halls of the New York Times (Not linked
here – registration required). Both articles were concerning the
alleged shortcomings of Linux security. Actually, they appeared to
have something to do with security and the source code for
Operating Systems being open, but I think an article written for
Security Focus by Garfinkle instigated them – he talked at length
about viruses and Linux. This was way beyond the scope of your
average journalist, to be sure, but the word “security” did come up
a couple times and the next thing you know, Silicon.com is quoting
experts of their own….”
“Linux is more secure out of the box than win95 or 98, which
is easy because Microsoft provides NO way to secure either win95 OR
98. Period.“
“Linux is NOT more secure out of the box than OpenBSD. Nothing
you can buy, and nothing anyone you know can buy, is. There has not
been a remote exploit (security hole, for you experts) in the
default OpenBSD setup in two and a half years. Period.”
“If there is ONE definitive proof that the source code being
opened up for review provides the opportunity to create secure
operating systems, OpenBSD is that proof.”
“Unfortunately, this baby was thrown out with the bath water
when the above listed experts, contacted for their expert quotes,
either weren’t asked, forgot or didn’t know about OpenBSD. They
must have forgotten. They had to know – didn’t they??…”