[K12OSN] Windows vs. Linux test by Symantec

[Huck]

I find this methodology odd.
#1 why not use an imaging method...plenty of free ones out there if you 
can't affoard Ghost.
#2 why are you connecting it to THE network before it's fully 
patched/installed, segment a part for installs only?

Martin Woolley wrote:
> On Wednesday 08 Mar 2006 18:50, David Trask wrote:
> 
>>I was reading an article about a test conducted by Symantec (Maker of
>>Norton AV...and other stuff) and this paragraph caught my eye....
>>
>>Windows XP Professional, said Symantec, stays safe just one hour and 12
>>seconds, while the
>>Windows 2000 Server (with SP4) made it an hour and 17 minutes. An
>>unpatched Windows Server 2003 system lasted somewhat longer.
> 
> 
> I'm surprised the XP box lasted that long.  I've been re-installing a bunch of 
> our XP boxes this week, the sequence being install XP, install the NIC 
> drivers, install A/V software, activate, patch, install office, etc, etc.  In 
> 3 of the 4 cases, the box has becomee infected before I can install the A/V 
> software (which is being installed from a shared drive).  These boxes are 
> being infected within the first few seconds of them being able to talk to the 
> network.   I've taken great delight in showing this to the staff - some are 
> finally realising that M$ is insecure and Linux is very secure. 
>