"DanS" <> wrote in message
news:Xns99B2CDED33AFAthisnthatadelphianet@216.196. 97.142...
> "dennis@home" <> wrote in news:48674902-
> 60BF-4441-A912-:
>
>>
>> "DanS" <> wrote in message
>> news:Xns99B2AE042F9E5thisnthatadelphianet@216.196. 97.142...
>>> "Communikator" <> wrote in news:#Vh32nI
> $HHA.4460
>>> @TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl:
>>>
>>>> http://www.simson.net/ref/ugh.pdf
>>>>
>>>> Just discovered it wandering through Wikipedia.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Now that's OT.
>>>
>>> And it really means nothing to anyone here.
>>>
>>> Note, it's about UNIX....not Linux.
>>
>> Linux is a copy of unix (well the linux is the kernel) and its many
>> utilities.
>>
>>> And.....it was written in 1994.
>>
>> And there haven't been any major changes to the way unix based OSes
> like
>> linux work.
>> Lots of bells and whistles but not much else.
>
> Oh...like Vista ? That pretty much sums it up.
>
While the end result may be similar the comparison is wrong.
There have been lots of changes in windows to make it more secure while
there have been few in Linux.
Just look at how insecure windows 3.1 was and compare that to NT.
In the same time span there was almost no security improvement as far as the
design of Linux goes AFAICS.
There may have been a few bugs removed and a few better utilities added but
many of the flaws as discussed in that document are still there.
What Linux users forget is that while Linux looks similar to Unix the
internals are not the same and Linux is based on much older technology than
say Solaris or SVR5 and while SVR5 can get a B2 (or even B1) security rating
Linux cannot..