On Monday 18 Aug 2008 18:11, Surya Pratap wrote:
Erach wrote:
JTD replied whose reply I intepret as follows that Windows (am I correct ---- does not have a secure kernel like UNIX)---- then how is Windows security done.
Actually JTD's answer meant that the kernel and user space memory allocation are well defined in linux and not so much in windows this means that user run programs are less likely to affect a system's security in linux than it is in windows (correct me if I am wrong)
Partly right. But the windows kernel itself is riddled with holes some diliberate some due to various backward compatibility issues. That apart security by obscurity is a known evil security practice. therefore not having the source available for scrutiny as well as patching is a strict NO for anything concerned with security.
Now, for all over Mumbai/INDIA, WIFI can we say that we have to have a secure kernel ---- for banks can one advocate a "develop new applications / enhancements over LINUX development tool with Windows running on top of LINUX using the emulator VIRTUALBOX which is open source).
Virtulization does not solve the security issue. Virtualization merely provides the ability to better utilise hardware and manpower.