Linked by Amjith Ramanujam on Sat 19th Jul 2008 19:01 UTC, submitted by cypress
Linux Linux and UNIX-like operating systems in general are regarded as being more secure for the common user, in contrast with operating systems that have "Windows" as part of their name. Why is that? When entering a dispute on the subject with a Windows user, the most common argument he tries to feed me is that Windows is more widespread, and therefore, more vulnerable. Apart from amusing myths like "Linux is only for servers" or "does it have a word processor?", the issue of Linux desktop security is still seriously misunderstood.
Thread beginning with comment 323726
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Chocolate covered turtles with sprinkles
by kaiwai on Sun 20th Jul 2008 06:39 UTC
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

Here three flaws that are made by both sides:

1) Linux has a smaller marketshare, therefore, it is less likely to be a target for malware writers. Malware writers want the best bang for the buck - they're not going to worry about targeting people like me (MacOS X user) or any other *NIX user. It just isn't worth their while. Don't confuse security holes and malware. The focus should be on the security hole itself, not the results of that security hole (aka exploits being written).

2) People confuse malware written for security holes. Windows advocates on this very forum try to shift the blame; as if Windows is 100%, and if it weren't for those 'nasty malware writers', it would be secure. That some how, malware gets on the machine, but it isn't the result of a security hole.

As a result, the focus is deliberately moved onto the malware instead of the security hole itself which allowed the malware to get onto the machine.

3) If Microsoft had a fast turn around because they were dealing with clean and efficient code (rather than the spaghetti mess they have today), then the malware writers wouldn't have the window of opportunity to launch a malware attack.

If their operating system had proper separation between the system, user and services, then we wouldn't see vulnerabilities within one service resulting in a roll on effect to the rest of the system.

Edited 2008-07-20 06:50 UTC

Reply Score: 4