My question is clear. Please show some sources!

We're not going to write your Masters' thesis for you. If you need sources go through the CVE database for the last n years and first normalize the vulnerabilities in regards to scope and severity. That should take about a 6 to 18 months alone, depending on how far back you go, then after that start counting and analyzing.

https://cve.mitre.org/

https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/search

Trade press articles won't help because nowadays the trade press is entirely beholden to advertising money from M$ partners as well as occasional direct influence. Then there are more than a handful of "former" microsofters posing now as journalists and even researchers. One such scammer recently got into the US administration and posed as a Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency for a while before being detected and ejected.

If you don't have 18 months of full-time equivalents skilled research to plow into your question, you might start with a much smaller sampling of malware, such as ransomware and mitigations such as OpenZFS or the absolute immunity that GNU/Linux enjoys.

tldr; for all practical purposes there are only two browsers (rendering engines) on the market, both suck

1 members found this post helpful.

A clarifying question: Do you mean Linux the kernel or do you mean a Linux distro, and if the latter, which distro?

I would say that DVD-based Linux distros are fairly safe. Not sure if something equivalent exists in the Windows world.

1 members found this post helpful.

"Windows is safer - it has got the better anti-virus programs"

1 members found this post helpful.

1 members found this post helpful.

Because you need first to get to be root on Linux, to get at the system, we don't have much to worry about.

1 members found this post helpful.

Truly, M$ resellers do say that and I am sure that most believe it. I've even run into them blocking deployment of an OpenBSD router (base + dnsmasq + WoL) until it could be proven that it was running an "anti-virus" program. ClamAV to the rescue.

However, before we digress too much, it would be good to read an answer to berndbausch's question in #3 above.

İ mean both.

Thanks for clarifying. In that case, it depends.

2 members found this post helpful.

If that is what you mean then you need to provide MUCH more information, and may find no one to do your homework for you.

What do you mean by "safer"? Safer in what sense? Safer for what? Safer FROM what? Safer for whom?

No matter what your answers to THOSE questions: If Kernel security is your focus, the answers are far different than answers for a distribution. Also, answer may differ markedly for different distributions. If you cannot focus your question at either end, you would need to write several books to definitively answer the questions that result, and those answers would only be valid until the next kernel release or distribution update.

Please ask a smarter question.

3 members found this post helpful.

A web search for "windows linux security compared" will turn up a number of articles.

That's because it needs them.

Excellent anti-virus programs are available for Linux. I have used both Comodo and AVG Free for Linux without issues, and others are readily available.

The biggest security danger in any OS, though, is PEBCAC--the person between the chair and the keyboard.

1 members found this post helpful.

I fully agree. Today's malware techniques are far away from the legacy disguised executables of the 90s. I've seen entire (mswindows) networks and servers hijacked despite payed antivirus software running and up-to-date.

1 members found this post helpful.