hoopycat wrote:
theatereleven wrote:
Okay, sweet. So that's probably how Windows servers get hacked so fast...they have a bunch of ports open for stuff.
No, it's usually a direct result of a user (or application) having more access than they know how to responsibly handle. I'd say any Windows OS released since the turn of the century is roughly as secure out-of-the-box (with a proper bare-bones install, applicable updates, and good passwords) as your average Linux distribution.
Historically Windows was wide open for attack; it had a bunch of exposed ports (eg SMB) and a mega-tonne of vulnerabilities.
As you say, though, a modern Windows is pretty secure. Most vulnerabilities have been fixed. However, there's always new ones so having SMB open is still a risk. Which is why Microsoft OS's also come with an enabled firewall, by default. Microsoft fail a core security concept; "if you don't have something installed then it can't be used for an exploit". Windows is dependent on a good firewall config because it inherently runs so many network services.
Now to be fair, Linux historically also came with a load of default services. Back in the RedHat 4 (the original RedHat 4, not RHEL) days the joke used to be "how long from after installation to exploit" (the most common was people using stupidly weak passwords, which is still a risk today). Today, however, a modern Linux install doesn't run things. Some distros don't even run sshd by default. "If you don't install it, it can't be exploited". Linux distros, typically, aren't dependent on firewalls for security.
Both OSes also historically came with poor defaults (eg sendmail allowing open spam relay; IIS allowing access to source files, etc etc). Both OSes are better at this, as well.
I don't run firewalls on my linode. I _do_ run a perimeter firewall at home (on the router) because I run additional services internally which I don't want exposed to the internet (eg NFS).