Windows v Linux

[MidnightCowboy]

I watched a BBC interview with Eugene Kaspersky today in which he said that Windows was more attractive to cyber criminals because it's the most popular operating system. This is fair enough and we've heard it all before. What did surprise me though was when he stated that "Fundamentally, Windows is no less secure by design than Linux".

Anyone else like to comment on that?

[wdhpr]

How does anyone argue with Eugene Kaspersky?


I believe he makes a valid point referring to the larger number of Windows users. I never thought Linux was impervious, why else does Ubuntu come with a firewall at install? I do have my questions about the inherent vulnerabilities of IE and ActiveX.
What about Linux platforms keeping the root files protected by design?
I would also be curious to know if he is comparing Linux with Win7 and not older versions of Windows due to the large numbers XP users out there. Are some Linux distros more vulnerable than others. My final question is he making his comparison to basic operating systems before installing security software in other words can Windows be made to be as safe as Linux?

Wdhpr

[MidnightCowboy]

I too appreciate that Linux is not a completely safe house either, but this seemed far too much of a blanket statement to be taken seriously. Sure you could go on to talk about all the things you can do with Windows to make it safe but that wasn't what he said. Maybe part of the interview was edited out for one reason or another so we never got to see any of the qualifications that might have followed.

[eyeb]

i really don't think linux is safer in terms of being attacked by a virus. it's just safer because there are less viruses...

Pretty much like do you feel safe walking around in a shopping mall or down a dark alley in the middle of a bad neighborhood. Both acts of walking are the same, its just because the environment of one makes it less safe.

that said, if you look at cellphones now, linux (android) vs windows phones. You'll see more virus attacks targetting android/iphones than windows purely because more people use those than window phones.

I mean really, how secure IS an open source OS? talking about having to find vulnerablilities in Windows to take advantages of, linux community finds these for you. If it's a matter of updating, well users who don't update windows wouldn't update linux either.

I've yet to get a virus that results from me doing nothing. All viruses i've gotten are because of my neglient actions and just blindly clicking the popup box. This wouldn't be any less effective using linux.

edit: the statement about design, aren't linux/windows based on similar backgrounds? I mean linux came from unix and wndows from dos. And unix and dos are basically brothers in how closely they were related. Plus windows wasn't DESIGNED to get viruses... it just got exploited.

[J_L]

I though the main defence of Linux was market share until I posted this thread: http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=273662

Comparing Linux to Windows now is like comparing apples and oranges. They may have evolved from a common ancestor, but that was a long time ago.

Originally Posted by MidnightCowboy

I watched a BBC interview with Eugene Kaspersky today in which he said that Windows was more attractive to cyber criminals because it's the most popular operating system. This is fair enough and we've heard it all before. What did surprise me though was when he stated that "Fundamentally, Windows is no less secure by design than Linux".

Anyone else like to comment on that?

Kaspersky makes his money protecting Windows.

Eugene Kaspersky has also called for an end to the anonymity of the Internet, and for the creation of mandatory 'Internet passports' for anyone who wishes to browse the Web.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10...net_anonymity/

I don't have much respect for the man after reading that, and I'll never buy any of his security products either.

[MidnightCowboy]

Originally Posted by J_L

I though the main defence of Linux was market share until I posted this thread: http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=273662

Thanks for the link

This was sort of my point in that with no admin privileges by default and vetted repos, by design, Linux is safer than Windows. Sure you could humanly engineer yourself into all sorts of trouble if the malware was available to do it with on Linux, but thats not what our friend Eugene said.

[wdhpr]

Originally Posted by J_L

I though the main defence of Linux was market share until I posted this thread: http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=273662

Comparing Linux to Windows now is like comparing apples and oranges. They may have evolved from a common ancestor, but that was a long time ago.

J L
Looks like you tapped into a lively debate. Perhaps some of it was slanted out of loyalty to Linux but the fact remains, by design Linux has better built-in security. As a novice I am reminded of Linux security each time I need to make a change requiring root access

[eyeb]

here's an article on lifehackers about something similiar
http://lifehacker.com/5800267/the-no...are-protection

[MidnightCowboy]

Thanks for the link. Nice to see Mac users aren't left out