The way I have always liked to put it specifically is that Linux is not inherently more secure than windows. However Linux is inherently easier to secure than Windows. Namespaces, apparmor, seccomp-bpf, and a very fine grain limited vs super user permission system. Just to name a few top level things.
The tools are all there on basically any system, very well documented, relatively easy to use. And once you set them up they will not randomly change things on you. I say this as a system administrator having to deal with Windows constantly where Microsoft decides that they are smarter than you and fuck your group policy edits because we put out this update and we think this option is better so we’re going to revert like half the shit you did. Over half my fucking job and security is just checking what did Microsoft fuck up about my security set up with this update, and trying to rotate through security vendor 2094726 to fill in the absolute basic security processes that windows doesn’t provide
you are just exploiting my words. I never said Linux will protect me whatever happens. But it will have a better protection inherently, than any windows
You’re holding onto a long-standing misconception: Linux is not inherently more secure than Windows. In fact, the opposite can be true.
The reason Linux seems safer is because it has a much smaller market share. Attackers don’t build massive botnets to target misconfigured Linux systems the way they do for Windows. But that’s not security—that’s just security through obscurity, which doesn’t hold up if someone is targeting you specifically.
Let me clarify my earlier point about “a link for you to click.” If an attacker is specifically targeting someone using Linux, they’re not any better protected than someone on Windows. At that point, it comes down to how well the user understands and secures their system.
The key difference? Windows actively warns you about misconfigurations that open you up to attack. For example, try enabling Remote Desktop Protocol—Windows will warn you repeatedly about the risks. Linux, on the other hand, won’t stop you. You can misconfigure SSH, open ports, or skip updates without a single warning. If someone’s after you and you’ve made a mistake? You’re toast.
Linux is powerful, but it doesn’t hold your hand the way Windows does. If you think it’s inherently secure, you’re just relying on the fact that fewer bots are looking for you—not that the system itself is protecting you.
Realistically the difference is in how Linux mitigates the common vectors for attack that Windows doesn’t. Most malware targeting individual workstations gets in by either supply chain attack, vulnerable web renderer or by tricking the user into installing it.
Centralized repositories with centralized build tooling limits opportunities for supply chain attacks, plus helps prevent users from accidentally downloading a Trojan when trying to grab other software. Containerizing web applications helps limit browser exploits, and less “features” phoning home means a default incoming-deny firewall policy will largely prevent most vulnerabilities from being remotely serious.
So for an individual workstation, Linux is significantly safer from viruses. In the enterprise it’s a completely different story where the threat environment does require defense in depth regardless of your choices of vendors
It probably makes you a less likely target though. I suppose that bots scan for known Widows vulnerabilities simply because that platform has a much higher market share among desktop operating systems. Besides, Linux distros offer a unified way to update all your software. On Windows, third-party software is often installed and maintained manually.
If you think being on Linux makes you immune for attacks, I have bad news for you.
The way I have always liked to put it specifically is that Linux is not inherently more secure than windows. However Linux is inherently easier to secure than Windows. Namespaces, apparmor, seccomp-bpf, and a very fine grain limited vs super user permission system. Just to name a few top level things.
The tools are all there on basically any system, very well documented, relatively easy to use. And once you set them up they will not randomly change things on you. I say this as a system administrator having to deal with Windows constantly where Microsoft decides that they are smarter than you and fuck your group policy edits because we put out this update and we think this option is better so we’re going to revert like half the shit you did. Over half my fucking job and security is just checking what did Microsoft fuck up about my security set up with this update, and trying to rotate through security vendor 2094726 to fill in the absolute basic security processes that windows doesn’t provide
there are much less vulrenabilities on Linux. No system is totally unpenetrable, but having 2-5 vulrebabilities is always better than having 30-40
VMS is really fucking close to impenetrable.
I’ve got a link for you to click, Mr super secure OS user. I promise your OS will protect you.
Do it
Here I have a cool program to install. Just pipe this link into bash really quick…
With sudo. Can’t forget that or it won’t work.
you are just exploiting my words. I never said Linux will protect me whatever happens. But it will have a better protection inherently, than any windows
You’re holding onto a long-standing misconception: Linux is not inherently more secure than Windows. In fact, the opposite can be true.
The reason Linux seems safer is because it has a much smaller market share. Attackers don’t build massive botnets to target misconfigured Linux systems the way they do for Windows. But that’s not security—that’s just security through obscurity, which doesn’t hold up if someone is targeting you specifically.
Let me clarify my earlier point about “a link for you to click.” If an attacker is specifically targeting someone using Linux, they’re not any better protected than someone on Windows. At that point, it comes down to how well the user understands and secures their system.
The key difference? Windows actively warns you about misconfigurations that open you up to attack. For example, try enabling Remote Desktop Protocol—Windows will warn you repeatedly about the risks. Linux, on the other hand, won’t stop you. You can misconfigure SSH, open ports, or skip updates without a single warning. If someone’s after you and you’ve made a mistake? You’re toast.
Linux is powerful, but it doesn’t hold your hand the way Windows does. If you think it’s inherently secure, you’re just relying on the fact that fewer bots are looking for you—not that the system itself is protecting you.
Realistically the difference is in how Linux mitigates the common vectors for attack that Windows doesn’t. Most malware targeting individual workstations gets in by either supply chain attack, vulnerable web renderer or by tricking the user into installing it.
Centralized repositories with centralized build tooling limits opportunities for supply chain attacks, plus helps prevent users from accidentally downloading a Trojan when trying to grab other software. Containerizing web applications helps limit browser exploits, and less “features” phoning home means a default incoming-deny firewall policy will largely prevent most vulnerabilities from being remotely serious.
So for an individual workstation, Linux is significantly safer from viruses. In the enterprise it’s a completely different story where the threat environment does require defense in depth regardless of your choices of vendors
It probably makes you a less likely target though. I suppose that bots scan for known Widows vulnerabilities simply because that platform has a much higher market share among desktop operating systems. Besides, Linux distros offer a unified way to update all your software. On Windows, third-party software is often installed and maintained manually.