17

Why is Linux considered more secure than Windows? Is there some sort of recent security report that proves it?

I have come to believe that Linux has been safer so far, but now as we have Windows 10, is Linux still better in security?

Robert Mennell
  • 6,978
  • 1
  • 14
  • 38
Omaja7
  • 199
  • 1
  • 1
  • 5
  • 4
    I think the only real answer to your question is: "Every OS is equally secure in the hands of a competent administrator". For a more detailed answer, you'll need to think about things like: what programs are running? What is your patch process? End-user or server? What kind of network infrastructure is it running in? Are you include in your statistics that your average Linux user tends to be more tech-savy than your average Windows user (and therefore less likely to download and run suspicious files). – Mike Ounsworth Apr 25 '16 at 18:05
  • 2
    One thing that gives Linux a slight edge is the source code is available for almost everything and anyone can develop a patch and post it for other users to adopt. If you have Windows you can't get anywhere near the source code and your at Microsoft mercy for any patches. – cybernard Apr 26 '16 at 01:17
  • @RobertMennell Considered by whom? Certainly not by any knowledgeable professional (assuming they are willing to put their religious feelings aside). – AviD Apr 27 '16 at 10:22
  • My personal experience is Windows servers are more secure than Linux. – Kiran RS May 01 '20 at 10:31
  • You can decide for yourself, see https://madaidans-insecurities.github.io/linux.html other than that it mostly depends on choice of software. Yes, anyone can develop a patch if source code of application is public but most developers simply don't care about vulnerabilities and it remains unfixed for months or even years, what I mean is open source does not guarantee security. – knoftrix Sep 11 '20 at 20:21

1 Answers1

20

Linux isn't really more secure than Windows. It's really more a matter of scope than anything. No matter what malware, exploits, and bad users exist EVERYWHERE. One being more secure than the other is nothing more than anecdotal evidence.

Malware exists for *nix, Mac, Windows, Android, iOS, Symbian, Xbox(yes), hard drives, and bios.

No operating system is more secure than any other, the difference is in the number of attacks and scope of attacks. As a point you should look at the number of viruses for Linux and for Windows. You'll see a trend in that Windows has FAR more viruses for it than Linux does and that's purely because it's more lucrative to hack for Windows since you have a greater chance of getting the thing you want. For all we know there might be a critical flaw in Linux that would open the world to pain if discovered. It hasn't been yet, but it could be there.

Really however OS security comes down to usage, habits, behaviour, and users just as much as it does software, hardware, security, and passwords. Your computer can be safe in an infected network as long as you do the following:

Constantly ask yourself "How do I keep MY computer safe?"

Really all you can ever do is work to keep your computer safe. That includes most notably safe computing habits. You could run for years without anti virus* and never get a virus as long as you're safe and you keep your computer safe. I'd still run an anti virus though since you could be safe all you want and make a single mistake.

After all those big data breaches you often hear about aren't usually on computers, but servers running special software, and it's the software itself that gets attacked and exploited to extract the data. What this means is that your computer is as safe as you make it. They didn't make theirs very safe.

Of course even if you make that software as secure as possible, it's all meaningless if someone manages to steal your credentials. In most data breaches an administrator gets phished, and their credentials are used to log in and steal the data. Here you can see that it didn't matter that the computer was safe since the user was attacked.

This really shows that there are two parts to security: The security of others (never trusted) and the security of yourself (only as good as you make it). To that end we all just try to make sure that the security of ourselves is as good as it can be. Herd immunity doesn't really apply to computer, so we have to keep them safe through our habits, usage, software we put on there, and making sure not to let in anything bad.

The world's most secure computer is turned off, not connected to anything, buried six feet underground, and destroyed.

Notes: *: Note the same as no security!

xandr23
  • 3
  • 2
Robert Mennell
  • 6,978
  • 1
  • 14
  • 38
  • 3
    Okay, but why windows has more viruses (vulnerabilities) than Linux? I have tried to google it, but I havent found a concrete answer. My own best guess is that Linux is open based project and therefore the development effort there is better, since there are lots of users contributing to safety, while Windows is closed project. Am I right? – Omaja7 Apr 25 '16 at 18:16
  • 11
    Nope, completely wrong. The truth of the matter is that if I write a single virus for windows, in the time that it is a viable virus I can infect magnitudes more than I could if I wrote the same virus for Mac or Linux. It's just better business in the virus world to attack the most possible targets with the least effort. – Robert Mennell Apr 25 '16 at 18:17
  • 4
    @Omaja7 Windows has historically been more targeted by malware authors due to it's wider market share and less technically inclined user base. – Bacon Brad Apr 25 '16 at 18:19
  • 2
    In fact, should Linux become the most popolar OS for home users, much more virii (viruses?) would be written for Linux than they would for Windows. Moreover, you could have a system with few vulnerabilities and a lot of malware using always the same ones. In the end, the number of malware for a given platform only depends on its popularity. – A. Darwin Apr 25 '16 at 18:26
  • 4
    @RobertMennell **Google, Facebook and Twitter use Linux servers, and as of 2007, PayPal also used** (couldn't find more recent information). Virtually all supercomputing is done under Linux (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems#Supercomputers). I would say there's plenty of motivation to hack into those servers (emails, banking information, bitcoin (?)). However, I agree that there aren't many Linux enthusiasts (except me :) around. – kristjan Jan 30 '17 at 15:37
  • 1
    @kristjan Non sequitur argument with a straw man fallacy. Yes they use *nix, but they aren't all uniform, aren't all the same, don't have the same ports, don't go to the same place, don't open emails... basically each attack against them MUST be tailored. Windows users? Open a website. Which is a better way to get multitudes of bank information? Torrents with bad viruses, or spending millions of hours to hack constantly changing servers? – Robert Mennell Mar 01 '17 at 20:53
  • 1
    @kristjan All those servers you have mentioned are not internet facing, and are well guarded network-wise inside their own datacenters as well (just like some Windows servers would). Also, they're not desktop computers in use by tech-gullible people. Your argument makes no sense. – oxygen Apr 24 '17 at 12:15
  • @A.Darwin "Moreover, you could have a system with few vulnerabilities and a lot of malware using always the same ones. In the end, the number of malware for a given platform only depends on its popularity." Think so? While Windows users will most likely not update critical flaws in their software, linux users will a) install software from safe repositories b) receive updates regularly. Therefore, even this few flaws many exploits scenario will hit linux much less than windows IMHO. – logical x 2 May 30 '17 at 17:51
  • @deusexmachina straw man falacy. Not all Nix users auto update and such. They can be just as bad as people. The true attack vector that makes windows so vulnerable is human interaction. – Robert Mennell May 30 '17 at 18:04
  • @RobertMennell I see. But I don't get it. In Windows, no software repositories are available -> it is almost impossible not to install malware, especially for the uneducated user. Linux has trusted software repos -> hard to install malware, only via PPAs. So even if linux became more popular, the mere fact that repos are available will make the situation much more safe. OS X for example is gaining in popularity, and still doesn't suffer as much vulnerabilities either. So there is also definitely something wrong with Windows itself aside from its popularity IMHO. *nix is just safer. – logical x 2 May 30 '17 at 19:36
  • @RobertMennell It just feels like linux encourages good security habits by default, while windows makes it really hard to establish any good security habits. That is not strictly technical, but more a kind of attitude. I don't see this changing even if linux would become more mainstream. Even then, having control over your system will be better than having no control in any case. E.g. cortana running on my system 24/7 without even the option of disabling being spied on. What does that have to do with popularity? I don't see e.g. ArchLinux forcing a cortana install ever despite its popular. – logical x 2 May 30 '17 at 19:44
  • @RobertMennell Or how about this: https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/107846/can-autoplay-usb-stick-spread-virus-to-windows-8-or-10 A nice example of how insecure windows really is. Basically, you can never insert a usb device on a windows system without checking autoplay settings beforehand. That has nothing to do with "a few vulnerabilities", that's actively encouraging being vulnerable. – logical x 2 May 30 '17 at 19:48
  • 2
    @deusexmachina again straw man fallacy. You're banking on other people always following safe practices or unsafe practices. these assumptions can never be confirmed or enforced. As for the question you posted to, security is a multifaceted affair. A list of attack vectors for any system is infinite. Nix and Mac will not protect you from a well designed insert attack either. BadUSB is a great example. It'll fry ANY system. Then there is overvolts. I've seen Nux computers catch fire form them – Robert Mennell May 30 '17 at 19:57
  • @RobertMennell I guess I see your point. BadUSB is a nice example (e.g. https://srlabs.de/bites/usb-peripherals-turn/) – logical x 2 May 31 '17 at 07:55