Letter: Feds have option to choose more secure systems
Regarding "Data breaches found to worry managers
": As I recall, the feds bypassed more secure Linux-based servers and decided on Microsoft products. This was a decision for "Homeland Security" and it seemed to me to be an oxymoron at the time. Given the factual history of attacks and weaknesses of the Microsoft platforms, why was it selected?
As a responsible CIO and company owner, I could never have selected such an inferior platform and expected security to withstand attacks.
It takes three time the developers to keep it running, it takes hours to manage patches, fixes, spyware and security issues each day. These overheads never include the total costs for the downtime caused frequently from such events.
Again, did you really expect to be immune from this endless cycle when choosing to use Microsoft and expecting your systems to meet requirements for a secure system? It was even announced you guys would be using Microsoft.
Time to regroup. Security comes first before wasting tax dollars on inferior products just because their market share is so large. Check out what a Linux back end can do for you. This does not mean you have to dump all your Microsoft just to build a more secure network. You could even run a pilot using old computers loaded with Linux and improve security. SUSE or Red Hat is equally capable. You have options.Cecelia HickelKiona Scientific
What do you think? Paste a comment in the box below (registration required), or send your comment to firstname.lastname@example.org
(subject line: Blog comment) and we'll post it.