Question What is more secure, desktop Linux or Windows?

[Stenographers]

A topic of much heated discussion. Which one is more secure? Lets frame this in some context to help answer the question. For this example, take a Fedora Linux desktop with SELinux configured and ClamAV installed. And lets compare this to a Windows desktop with the optional security features like ASR rules and controlled folder access enabled. This would be in an enterprise environment.

Additionally, some people say that open source development is more secure because anyone can review the source code for security holes. Others argue that open source is less secure because bad actors can look at the source code for vulnerabilities. Research has shown that security holes, once discovered, are patched in about the same amount of time for both closed source and open source software.

Windows has virtualization based security and sandboxing for user space applications. Fedora has Flatpaks which are sandboxed applications you can control the permissions of.

So, which one is more secure in this example? Does Linux have an edge over Windows when it comes to security? (Ignoring things like Qubes OS, which is by design much more secure than any other OS.)

 

[Bot]

Both Linux and Windows can be made secure with the right configurations and settings. However, Linux may have an edge over Windows in terms of security due to its open source development model, built-in security features like SELinux, and a smaller population of potential targets for attackers. Nevertheless, it ultimately depends on the specific environment and how well security measures are implemented and maintained.

 

[Ink]

Are you we talking about an environment with an end-user, or not?

All end-users are an additional unnecessary risk.

 

[Stenographers]

Are you we talking about an environment with an end-user, or not?

All end-users are an additional unnecessary risk.

Sorry should have been more clear. Lets assume that both OS's are being ran by a seasoned systems administrator with experience in both. Essentially under ideal conditions, where configured for maximum security and done properly, which would be more secure?

 

[Sandbox Breaker]

ChromeOS

 

[wat0114]

Lets assume that both OS's are being ran by a seasoned systems administrator with experience in both. Essentially under ideal conditions, where configured for maximum security and done properly, which would be more secure?

I think only a seasoned systems administrator with experience in both can reliably answer your question.

 

[Stenographers]

I think only a seasoned systems administrator with experience in both can reliably answer your question.

I wouldn't call myself a seasoned system administrator, but I was a sysadmin for a while before becoming a security engineer. My understanding is that Fedora is more secure out of the box, but both can be configured to be reasonably secure. But I've been wrong about things before, and I'm hoping to get some different perspectives, sysadmin or not

 

[Sandbox Breaker]

Linus said ChromeOS is new Linux

Run Qubes OS

 

[Brahman]

A topic of much heated discussion. Which one is more secure? Lets frame this in some context to help answer the question. For this example, take a Fedora Linux desktop with SELinux configured and ClamAV installed. And lets compare this to a Windows desktop with the optional security features like ASR rules and controlled folder access enabled. This would be in an enterprise environment.

Additionally, some people say that open source development is more secure because anyone can review the source code for security holes. Others argue that open source is less secure because bad actors can look at the source code for vulnerabilities. Research has shown that security holes, once discovered, are patched in about the same amount of time for both closed source and open source software.

Windows has virtualization based security and sandboxing for user space applications. Fedora has Flatpaks which are sandboxed applications you can control the permissions of.

So, which one is more secure in this example? Does Linux have an edge over Windows when it comes to security? (Ignoring things like Qubes OS, which is by design much more secure than any other OS.)

It doesn't matter much for sys admins, as they can make both equally secure imho. But I feel Linux has an advantage of being more secure out of the box. Windows without a 3rd part security software is not as secure as Linux is. I have installed fedora in my wife's laptop with nextdns doh and firewall set to drop all incoming with a user account without admin privileges and I know she will not be able to install a malware in it at all. What this gives me is peace of mind, i know I don't have to worry about security of her system. She is also happy with fedora, everything she needs to run on it runs just fine. So I vote for linux, especially for fedora.

 

[RansomwareRemediation]

I have understood, from my experience and what I have investigated, is that Windows in terms of security is 10 years ahead of Linux (Unix). And that is due to the gigantic number of users that Windows has. Regardless of the fact that Linux is used more than Windows on servers. Greetings. ps: the amount of malware that is created for windows is gigantic and usually many are created on Linux.

 

[MuzzMelbourne]

One can only assume you have conceded MacOS is the most secure and you are just comparing the 'also ran's'...

Afterall, according to Wiki, Apple laptops have been in the top 5 seller's by volume since 2012, so there couldn't be any other reason not include MacOs in your comparison...

 

[RansomwareRemediation]

I was forgetting something. The Linux kernel is freely accessible, for everyone it is even downloadable. The Windows kernel is encapsulated. No one can access it. That increases security. Just because Windows is attacked doesn't mean it's not safe.

 

[MuzzMelbourne]

Let's face it, even after 40 years of development, Windows, or more generally Microsoft software, is the most porous software in the World.

As far as I know, 'Patch Tuesday' is THE day of the week for Windows users...

Thanks BryanB, good timing as usual...

Microsoft cautions that Patch Tuesday Windows kernel bugfix could break something

Microsoft has cautioned about a bug fix it released with Patch Tuesday. The fix resolves a kernel issue in Windows but Microsoft has disabled it by default as it can potentially break something.

www.neowin.net

 

[Stenographers]

I was forgetting something. The Linux kernel is freely accessible, for everyone it is even downloadable. The Windows kernel is encapsulated. No one can access it. That increases security. Just because Windows is attacked doesn't mean it's not safe.

That is one argument that people make - that open source allows for bad actors to find flaws more easily. Others argue that open source means security issues get patched quicker. Data shows that Fedora Linux and Windows have about the same number of critical vulnerabilities and patch them about as quickly, with Fedora having a slight edge. I think the data shows that those two arguments are two sides of the same coin - they balance each other out!

 

[Stenographers]

Let's face it, even after 40 years of development, Windows, or more generally Microsoft software, is the most porous software in the World.

As far as I know, 'Patch Tuesday' is THE day of the week for Windows users...

Thanks BryanB, good timing as usual...

Microsoft cautions that Patch Tuesday Windows kernel bugfix could break something

Microsoft has cautioned about a bug fix it released with Patch Tuesday. The fix resolves a kernel issue in Windows but Microsoft has disabled it by default as it can potentially break something.

www.neowin.net

Windows by design isn't very secure out of the box. It is intended for maximum compatibility, at the expense of security. But there are many obscure optional features you can enable via archaic menus and powershell commands that help plug the leaks.

 

[Stenographers]

I have understood, from my experience and what I have investigated, is that Windows in terms of security is 10 years ahead of Linux (Unix). And that is due to the gigantic number of users that Windows has. Regardless of the fact that Linux is used more than Windows on servers. Greetings. ps: the amount of malware that is created for windows is gigantic and usually many are created on Linux.

Windows does have many more security features, but out of the box it appears to be less secure than a stock Fedora Linux install. And Linux is designed as a multi user system, and generally has tighter security by this design. Windows originated as a single user system, and Microsoft's intent on backwards comparability makes it hard for them to fix these fundamental issues.

 

[MuzzMelbourne]

.

Mmmmmm, I just noticed you a scrumptious kitty in your avatar... yummy

 

[Sandbox Breaker]

Mmmmmm, I just noticed you a scrumptious kitty in your avatar... yummy

You eat cats

And people actually consider windows more secure

 

[MuzzMelbourne]

You eat cats

And people actually consider windows more secure

1. Oh yeah... they're out of this World... its a species thing.

2. Than what?

 

[Ink]

This article was posted back in 2021.

Linux is an open-source operating system, which means that the source code for it is available for anyone to see and modify, you can even create your personal Linux distribution and commercialize it if you want and nobody will stop you.

At first, you might think that this is a security risk since bad people can look at the code. But the benefits outweigh the risks in this case. Since even more, developers and researchers all over the world find bugs and exploits and send patches almost every day to the Linux source code, which makes it safer and more secure over time

Despite all of that, user actions are what matters in the end. Windows can be as safe as Linux if it is piloted by a good user who takes security measures into consideration.

The point where Linux beats Windows the most in my opinion is that it makes it hard for you to screw up because it gives you good security options by default and pushes you to do the right thing.

Microsoft could learn a lot from the way Linux does that. And as the developers of the most used desktop operating system in the world, they should implement better default options for security to combat nowadays risks.

Source: medium.com/codex/5-reasons-why-linux-is-more-secure-than-windows