HERE IS AN EXCERPT FROM THE ARTICLE... PRETTY INTERESTING READING. IF YOU AREN'T STUBBORN AND HAVE AN OPEN MIND AS WELL AS OPEN SOURCE GIMME A REPLY

"Adversaries of Linux, including myself, have for years argued that Linux is not secure. Our strongest line of reasoning points to the Linux operating system’s lack of adherence to TCSEC (Trusted Computer Security Evaluation Criteria) and CC (Common Criteria) standards. (Please note that I said adherence and not certification, because an operating system can still be secure by voluntarily adhering to TCSEC and CC standards without being officially certified.)

You may recall my article “Oh Linux, Where Art Thou?” where I cite John Pescatore, Director of Internet Security for Gartner. He and I see eye to eye on the issue of Linux security. In response to Microsoft’s announcement that Windows 2000 SP3 became CC EAL 4 certified, he said that Linux simply couldn’t meet this level of security. Now, the world’s largest Linux distributor and source of Linux service and support is acknowledging that he’s right.

In a press release issued on February 13, 2003, Red Hat announced that security in Microsoft Windows 2000 SP3 is provably and certifiably superior to security in Red Hat Linux. Well, ok, Red Hat didn’t say that with words, but it most certainly said that with actions.

What Red Hat actually did say with words was that it is pursuing CC certification for Red Hat Linux Advanced Server at Evaluation Assurance Level 2 (EAL2). That’s right, EAL2, the second lowest level of security assurance. Remember, higher numbers are better. Just to put this into perspective for you, Mac OS X is CC EAL3 certified, Sun Solaris is CC EAL4 certified, and Microsoft Windows 2000 SP3 is CC EAL4 certified.

Those are some pretty loud actions, and they’re saying some pretty interesting things. They’re saying that Linux is two levels of security behind Sun Solaris, a Unix-based operating system. They’re saying Linux is two levels of security behind its arch nemesis, Microsoft Windows 2000. They’re saying Linux is a full level of security behind Mac OS X, an Open Source operating system based not on Linux but on BSD. They’re saying that Linux is the epitome of mediocrity, that Linux, in its current state, simply isn’t up to par when it comes to operating system security, and here’s the clincher: they’re saying that all those Linux evangelists who have been preaching about the so-called “superior” security of Linux have been lying to you."


THE REST OF THE ARTICLE HERE

Sounds like another one of Bill Gate's minions. You know I'm no security expert and I don't understand much about this CC EAL4 but in my opinion this guy must have something personal against Linux. From my recollection, I don't think it was a Linux exploit that knocked out an entire countries(Korea) internet in 10 seconds. But of course these kinds of things get swept under the rug in articles like this.

I am open minded about these issues because I'd like to believe that the largest software provider in the world is distrubiting secure software but they're not. Its all about a bottom line.

It seems like this gentlemen is basing his whole argument on this CC EAL4 certification. I wonder if he's gone to symantec.com and looked at the number of virus for Linux vs. Microsoft. Or if he's tallied up the score of Linux Exploits that have crippled companies vs. M$ Exploits that have crippled companies. Granted M$ is more widely used but I think thats exactly what makes it less secure.

Why fight David when you can take out the Goliath of operating systems?

i do not have a redhat certificate but that doesnt makes me that i cant use redhat linux over 60 percent of servers(anykind) uses linux as their operating system so they all unsecure then as mentioned above it was this secure operating system that f_cked up the internet and a link for you about security on linux.

Red Hat Achieves Defense Department COE Certification
http://www.redhat.com/about/presscen...ess_rhlas_coe/