03.03.08
More Linux Security FUD, Matthew Broersma Named
A site reader sent us a link to this recent article stating:
Here we have a nice, informative article about a security flaw found in recent Linux kernels. That is, it is informative until that last couple of paragraphs which go into non-sequitors. In particular, the last paragraph would strongly suggest to the uninitiated that Windows is more secure than Linux. It’s remarkable because, otherwise, the article is not about Windows at all.
“Perhaps the writer was trolling for reactions, page impressions and advertiser goodwill.”I found out about this article because my manager cited it. I pointed out that the “number of vulnerabilities” comparison is faulty for at least 2 reasons: 1) Red Hat includes a much wider range of software than Windows alone and, 2) it’s unclear how Secunia is counting security bugs and it’s difficult to give a valid comparison because Microsoft often patches more than one vulnerability in a single patch and does not reveal vulnerabilities which it deems “too sensitive.” The comments also contain other valid points, such as that there is no mention of the severity of the security bugs or how quickly they are fixed.
Overall, that last paragraph seems to be FUD. It tries to take on a topic that really deserves its own article and not just a biased and in-passing mention. Perhaps the writer was trolling for reactions, page impressions and advertiser goodwill.
Some time ago, Secunia did something extraordinary that led to deceptive/sensationalist/rushed headlines. Peter Judge had a nice analogy that said "man bites dog" is more interesting than "dog bites man", which is why writers provoke and stir things up. We already posted a few articles covering security FUD pieces. The source of the FUD is often Microsoft itself. It hides bugs. It proudly and shamelessly lies. Other parties assist such deception. Just look at the previous post about Gartner. █
