Ubuntu inviolate

[the middle]

for the moment...
It's just a matter of interest
http://micro.lemondeinformatique.fr/act ... -2063.html
Good weekend to all

Hacking contest: Linux inviolate, but not necessarily safer than Vista

03/04/2008 Edition - by Vincent Delfau

Of the three PCs offered as food for participants in the hacking competition organized last week, the only one to remain untouched was the Vaio equipped with Ubuntu. The machines with Leopard and Vista resisted one and two days respectively before falling under the assaults of hackers. However, it would be futile to draw a hasty conclusion on the security levels of the OS concerned.
"Ubuntu was just less attractive," said Terri Forslof of TippingPoint, the company that provided the few thousand dollars awarded to the winners. "A competition like this is not an exact barometer" and does not establish a ranking of the safest OS. Consequently, the simple fact that the armed laptop of Ubuntu did not fail, does not allow to affirm that this system is more immune to attack than Vista or Mac OS X. Only the lack of Interest of the candidates therefore explains the inviolability of the Linux machine: "The exploit of Shane Macaulay (the PC faller under Vista) would have worked just as well on Linux, ensures Terri Froslof". But the ink of observers is quicker to flow to report a flaw affecting a proprietary OS widely distributed rather than an Open Source distribution with transparent code.

[yannko]

It is true that the flaws on Microsoft's OS are much better known and widespread than on other platforms.
That said, in all honesty, I very much doubt that a Linux kernel is much more secure than a Leopard (FreeBSD + Darwin). Especially since not that long ago, Ubuntu did not even offer a secure ssh or ftp client by default .
In the meantime, it's still progressed well, but you have to keep one thing in mind: nothing is invulnerable for those who are really decided and interested in the thing (like concrete and non-virtual things).