Home > Articles > mi2g response: Experts challenge mi2g security study

mi2g response: Experts challenge mi2g security study

November 8th, 2004

The UK-based security firm mi2g today has issued an open-letter as a response to LinuxPipeline story on mi2g latest report that rates Linux as the least safe and secure.

With respect, we are concerned that we have not been asked to make a comment at all in regard to the published article, which amounts to firing a gun, that discredits us and challenges our reputation, on the shoulder of eminent personalities. Those personalities also appear not to have read the mi2g news alert or the underlying report for that matter and have made factually incorrect statements as a result.

For the record, we are supporters of Linux and run www.mi2g.net on Linux. The mi2g Security Intelligence Products and Systems (SIPS) Engine runs on Linux, Apache, MySQL and PHP (LAMP) architecture. We believe that good administration is central to working with Linux. Those skills are lacking in the global market and are the root cause behind Linux receiving a much higher number of manual hacker breaches. Manual breaches can be much more complex and sophisticated than automated ones proliferated through malware.

Neither mi2g Ltd nor the mi2g Intelligence Unit have a business relationship with Apple Computers or Microsoft Corporation and we do not own any shares, options or derivatives in those corporations at present.

Previously, the mi2g data for one month was considered to be too small a sample and not representative of the global environment within which different types of entities – micro, small, medium and large – exist. We have addressed those concerns in the new study.

The critics were against the previous study which also came out in favour of Apple and BSD, because the entrenched supporters of Linux and Windows felt that mi2g was guilty of ´computing blasphemy´.

In subsequent months, mi2g´s reputation was damaged on search engines and bulletin boards. We would urge caution when reading negative commentary against mi2g, which may have been clandestinely funded, aided or abetted by a vendor or a special interest group.

Articles

Comments are closed.