Do you know why?

W

worldblackstar

New Member
I know Linux is more secure than the windows. But i don't know the reason. I think it may secure because of kernal. If any one know exactly how it is secure, reply me
 
My idea on why is because Linux isn't as widespread as Windows, and there are some better security techniques in Linux than Windows.
I can't explain it fully, a long term member on here can, though, if he wants to post.
 
Linux is actually almost as widespread as Windows. Just not on consumer computers. Linux is the most widely used server OS on the market today because of it's stability and (so for unknown to us) security.
 
worldblackstar said:
I know Linux is more secure than the windows. But i don't know the reason. I think it may secure because of kernal. If any one know exactly how it is secure, reply me
Click to expand...

Linux is not more secure than Windows. That claim is debatable at best, and a complete opinion, not a fact. The word "secure" is nothing more than a marketing technique used by both Microsoft and Linux to gain popularity. Windows is the most widely used operating system in the world; thus being targeted more often than not by hackers. If Linux was the more popular of the operating systems, it too would be targeted as much as Windows, and the roles would be reversed. As much like the myth that a Mac is "safer" than a PC. There is no substantial evidence to state such a bold claim, and to do so is a lie. No OS is more secure than the other. Linux is not almost as widespread as Windows, with Windows owning 80% of the market, I don't think it's even close.
 
Last edited:
if a hacker wants results from many he will pick and choose majority.
Its windows for the most popular results. We all and mostly will turn on script controls, cookies, not send email in blind copy for junk mail. Yes, i do try and run secure. the above is turned on for a site i am familiar with. Besides not turning on admin rights with strict controls. (permissions).

Depends on where i am going.
 
@Demilich you do have a point that the os that is the most widespread is the one that will be attacked but the differences in how Windows, Mac and Linux are built are really where the battle in security is won IMO.

Quote from what tossy posted.
...The bad thing about the Windows approach, where everything from the highest level user applications like a Web browser or a word processor is linked to the lowest level of the core operating system, is that almost any vulnerability can be used to attack the entire system.

Why, this Tuesday, three Windows image-rendering flaws have made XP, W2K and 2003 users' PCs vulnerable to takeover attacks. Your Windows PC could be gutted like a fish simply by viewing a rigged image in Outlook, Internet Explorer, or Word.

Yeow!

This is a perfect example of a Windows-only problem. First, even if there were the same holes in three Linux applications, say Thunderbird, Firefox and OpenOffice.org Writer, it still couldn't hammer a Linux system the way it could Windows. Linux simply doesn't have those useful, but dangerous, Windows internal links.
Click to expand...
 
salvage-this said:
@Demilich you do have a point that the os that is the most widespread is the one that will be attacked but the differences in how Windows, Mac and Linux are built are really where the battle in security is won IMO.

Quote from what tossy posted.
Click to expand...

What battle for security? Respectively, as I posted before, if the roles were reversed, and Linux was the 80% share holder, then we would be talking about flaws in the Linux kernel, because Linux would constantly be attacked by hackers, and viruses.

The link posted by tossy is nothing more than Linux propaganda. I say this because of the wording of the article: "...Your Windows PC could be gutted like a fish simply by viewing a rigged image in Outlook, Internet Explorer, or Word." That's a ridiculous exaggeration, basically meant to instill fear into Windows users.

Also posted in the article: "...This is a perfect example of a Windows-only problem"
I can go on Google right now, and find a "Linux-only problem".

Windows is by no means perfect. But, then, neither is Linux. Each OS has their own faults, and vulnerabilities.
 
Last edited:
Demilich said:
No OS is more secure than the other.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree with you on this point.

One can have a secure OS, and a stripped-down Linux is the easiest way to get there.

I agree that the Linux kernel is not bullet-proof, and the more stuff you pile onto it, the more vulnerabilities you will have. The more software you run in an OS, the more holes you will have. Allow outsiders access, and you ask for trouble. A determined hacker will get into any system, given enough time, training, and motivation.

With that said, 90% of the casual hackers and script-kiddies out there will be stopped by any decent Linux-based firewall (designed specifically to be a firewall) and most (if not all) of us here are too small-time for the other 10% to even bother with our home systems.

As you say, Windows is a primary target and therefore a lot more vulnerabilities and holes are publicized. However, any number of exploits could exist that you and I never hear about because the bad guys who 'find' them don't announce their findings. Microsoft may or may not know about it and they will work on countermeasures at their own leisure, depending on how 'important' they feel the vulnerability is.

In the open-source community, many exploits are discovered and immediately announced publicly, oftentimes along with a patch.

Of course, there are exploits for Linux out there that haven't been patched, just like in Windows; but again, with more Windows machines out in the hands of ignorant consumers, the bad guys tend to target them.

The people who use Linux, as a general rule, are more computer-savvy than the average Windows or MacOS user, and they are more likely to take additional measures to safeguard their machine(s); in my opinion.

My Ubuntu OS updates weekly, on average, whereas Windows updates what, every second Tuesday of the month or something? That has to count for something as well, don't you think?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top