i am woundering is linux really that secure?
theres report from symantec saying that windows not that unsecure just because windows have a very big users and being targeted by many people and thats why windows got alot of flaws. and it quote that linux may also valnurable to attack if it also have big slice of users in the world.

can i know how secure is linux compared with windows if "both of them have the same amount of users around the world"

they also quote that linux is more valnurable to attack because its source code is freely available. anyone can look at the source code and and findout what went wrong.

i persoanlly like linux alot from the day one i boot in it.
those news i got from my local tech news paper.

One if the reasons linux is more secure is that it from day one was to be server based while windows was always made for desktop based.

When setup properly linux is very secure but if misconfigured it can be more insecure than windows

60% of all webservers are linux based

I personally think that open source software is ineherently MORE secure, because bugs are found and patched quickly. You don't have to wait for the proprietors to a cost/benefit analysis to decide the patch is worth writing, it just gets done because the open source community cares about the quality of its software.

Also, note that most windows machines have only one user, the equivelant of a root. On unix variants, user's abilities are limited (and for good reason).

One important thing to remember though, is a machine is only as secure as you make it. There are plenty of vulnerable linux machines out there, from unknowledgeable or lazy sysadmins. However, because linux is open, it is highly configureable. This make the possibilities for securing a machine much more robust than windows.

I would also argue that because linux is so configureable, it is more difficult to break in to them because you never know exactly how its setup.

~Andrew

I also did note such a report from symantec.symantec is a respacted company and we may say that their report should be quite impartial.one thing i know about linux is,since an ordinary user dont have access to system config files and all,linux can be considered as secure against viruses and all.There are already a few viruses in linux.So i dont think linux is fully secure..When we ask ANTI_LINUX people about why linux is getting very much popular ,they say that,most viruses are targeted against windows.(are written against windows,by pro-linux people.).and the users think that it is a problem with windows and therefore they go for linux.about linux is opensource and therefore insecure is baseless since linux sourcecode is being inspected by thousands of people around the world.(most of them are geeks.).and they can find all these flaws and can correct them,and that is the advantage of opensource(there is very little probability that hackers will find this first than true_linux_geeks).and another question,Why hotmail is running on FreeBSD??also,symantec produces anti virus for windows,and 'more people staying with windows' means more products sold.!!!

I didn't know windoze had any security. It has more holes than a screen door. IMHO, it's about as worthless as a screen door on a submarine, submerged. Wet feet.

Just had to say that. Linux if configured properly can be VERY secure. You can reach a point that physical access is more if a concern. Boot to a floppy and your in.

My two cents.

It is certainly true that one of the main security benefits of Linux, Un*x, Max OS etc. is that they are less common. Similarly if you use Windows with an email client like Eudora, you're far less likely to be affected by email viruses since they will tend to target holes in Outlook which has achieved a critical mass.

This benefit should not be ignored. A recent paper by several security experts proposed that security would be enhanced if no OS had a huge share of the market and that's probably right. Linux is not going to overtake Windows in the next 10 years and since few people make platform decisions for more that 10 years in the future, this is still a valid reason for not going with Windows.

Linux does have some advantages over Windows in addition to this though :
1. The number of bugs in any software is broadly proportional to the size of code. Windows has far more lines of code (up to 60 million) that Linux and, importantly, has a lot more in the kernel (which is a higher risk, security wise). There are almost certainly a lot more undiscovered Windows security bugs than undiscovered Linux security bugs.

2. Windows is heavily integrated (e.g. the alleged inability to separate the OS and Internet Explorer). This makes it far more likely that the interaction between different apps will cause security problems; and that a bug fix will break something else.

3+. Several others but how much time do I have to write this

Iain.

Another important reason is how Linux handles users.
User x can't harm the system even if his/her account is infected.
Another big advantage.. if I find a bug.. I'll fix it and submit a patch. If I find a bug in windows, I'll live with it until MS decides to write a patch.. if they even do so.
And.. if I don't know how something works 100%.. I can go into the code and look at what it does, so I learn to configure and use it better.

There are many different security models for Linux, as opposed to Windows.
Passwords in Windows are trivial. Once I have the password file, it's over. ~ 5 seconds to crack a password.
Get the file in Linux, and you'll be staring at your computer until it cracks them (which is in the order of years) (given that a dictionary attack isn't possible, but that's bad security anywhere)

Ohh.. and did I mention that there aren't many viruses for Linux? things that can be exploited by them are fixed quickly. (No it's not marketshare that prevents this, it's the uselessnes of viruses under linux because they don't get to infect the core of the OS)
There are many other benefits.. but I have to run heh

I'll be nice and say that the argument that proprietary software is more secure than open source is incorrect. Consider encryption algorithims. Companies that advertise 'secret' methods tend to have poor records because their 'secret methods' are not well tested until theyre released. Whereas open source algorithims are much more robust and secure because hundreds of hackers abd degree candidates have tested them, looking for material for publication. The classic scientific model is open source. If it weren't, you'd probably be out hunting for dinner with a bow and arrow.