Microsoft SQL vs Oracle : David Litchfield Comparison Paper

re: Microsoft SQL vs Oracle : David Litchfield Comparison Paper

Jamieson Royce — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 09:56:20 GMT

The paper was rather short and sounded a little biased (the results probably caused that). It also seemed to focus only on bug numbers not severity so the results may be skewed.

Apple arrives to the security vulnerability party in 2007 - fashionably late!

Robert Hensing's Blog — Tue, 02 Jan 2007 19:37:18 GMT

So a while back - Oracle decided to brag about how their database was 'unbreakable' in an ad campaign

Un blog très intéressant sur la sécurité en général...

SQL Server, BizTalk Server, le 64 bits et au-delà !... — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 14:14:22 GMT

http://blogs.technet.com/security/ et notamment celle des bases de données ! Les derniers chiffres sont

SQL Server - Fact Checking Recent Vulnerability History

Jeff Jones Security Blog — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 01:53:48 GMT

Last week a web-based news story comes to my attention - Microsoft's glasnost on interoperability means

re: Microsoft SQL vs Oracle : David Litchfield Comparison Paper

VG for Oracle — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 08:51:39 GMT

As per the survey shown in the chart, It seems that Oracle has done really well.

re: Microsoft SQL vs Oracle : David Litchfield Comparison Paper

hba — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 14:59:18 GMT

it seems VG then that you didn"t read the title for the graph. The graph is the vulnerability track record for both Oracle vs SQL Server. Hence, the high points in the graph for oracle shows that indeed it is more vulnerable to security attacks than MS SQL