posted by Thom Holwerda on Sun 5th Feb 2006 17:10 UTC
IconOne of the biggest reasons for many people to switch to a UNIX desktop, away from Windows, is security. It is fairly common knowledge that UNIX-like systems are more secure than Windows. Whether this is true or not will not be up for debate in this short editorial; I will simply assume UNIX-like systems are more secure, for the sake of argument. However, how much is that increased security really worth for an average home user, when you break it down? According to me, fairly little. Here's why.

UNIX is geared towards server use, and so is its security system. As we all know, 'normal' users do not have permanent root access (well, shouldn't have, in any case). As such, all important system files are protected from whatever stupid things the user might do. The user does not have full access rights to all files. The user only has full access rights to his or her own personal files.

And that is where the problem lies.

I believe that desktop Linux/OSX/etc. users all over the world have a false sense of security, and are activily promoting that false sense of security on the internet, in magazines, and conferences all over the world. No, they are not doing this on purpose. However, that does not negate the fact that it does happen.

What I am blabbering about?

A hypothetical virus or other malware on a UNIX-like system can only, when it is activated by a normal user, wreak havoc inside that user's /home directory (or whatever other files the user might have access rights to). Say it deletes all those files. That sucks, but: UNIX rocks, the system keeps on running, the server-oriented security has done its work, no system files were affected, uptime is not affected. Great, halleluja, triumph for UNIX.

But what is more important to a home user? His or her own personal files, or a bunch of system files? I can answer that question for you: the pictures of little Johnny's first day of school mean a whole lot more to a user than the system files that keep the system running. Of course, they should make backups-- but wasn't Linux supposed to be secure? So why should they backup? Isn't Linux immune to viruses and what not? Isn't that what the Linux world has been telling them?

This is the false sense of security I am talking about. UNIX might be more secure than Windows, but that only goes for the system itself. The actual content that matters to normal people is not a single bit safer on any UNIX-like system than it is on any Windows system. In the end, the result of a devastating virus or other malware program can be just as devastating on a UNIX-like system as it can be on a Windows system-- without the creator having to circumvent any extra (UNIX-specific) security measures.

To blatantly copy Oasis: don't believe the truth. Yes, UNIX-like systems might be more secure than Windows systems, but not in the places where it matters to average home users.

--Thom Holwerda

If you would like to see your thoughts or experiences with technology published, please consider writing an article for OSNews.
e p (18)    249 Comment(s)

Technology White Papers

See More