What is more Secure, Windows or Linux?

Hi I was just wondering what was more secure for online activity such as accessing things like paypal and ebay? Is windows more secure?

Is using Linux such as Ubuntu based distro's less secure?

 

While plenty of technically sound arguments can be made, a post like this on a public/consumer forum would only stir a fanboys' keyboard fight.

In most cases the platform is about as secure as the human operator. (This is probably a bad time to say this considering that we just had a major non-social-engineering attack yesterday. Was that what made you ask this question?)

 

Either would be secure enough for online shopping, provided the user practices sane security (for example, don't give unknown things permissions to run).

A lot of attacks these days focus on the weakest link (the meat bag behind the keyboard) and that attack is OS agnostic.

 

If you know what you are doing, they are both equally secure.

If you ask such questions or don't know what you are doing, Linux is more secure.

90% of the pc userbase are windows users. As such, hackers will create viruses targeted at windows (more profitable). These viruses are usually executables (like exe file) that only work in windows. You might download these executables from an email attachment or ad on linux, but they won't run.

 

ChromeOS.

verified boot image, sandboxing, and more..

example:
Charles Schwab says no to Windows 10 -- chooses Chromebooks instead..

Spoiler: tldr;

actually most unstafe stuff involves social engineering or tricking people into clicking on or installing stuff they shouldn't.

 

Either one is secure as responders have spoken what you should be asking is which has more software support and updates. Also because Windows is bigger it has a bigger target on it's back but that doesn't mean it worse. If you want more software installs and universal uses Windows will provide you more options. Also consider hardware support and Linux doesn't surpass iOS to be consider a real alternative to Windows so until it can unseat iOS will it really give Windows a run for it's money-another downside with Linux there is so many Distro infighting that they can't set a standard to go by thus rendering themselves already not a Windows competitor to start with. This is the hard facts Linux has yet to overcome to be a heavy weight against Windows.

 

Oh boy, here we go with the fanboy stuff

 

With my eyes closed, Linux is secure. With W10 using Edge is much safer for noobs. For shopping/banking, check website is using TLS 1.2 with atleast 256bit keys.

 

That's a stretch to make as fanboy are more fanatical then telling where each O/S currently stands in the place of consumer usage and hardware and software support. Until that changes Linux will always be a distant 3rd place since it has yet to unseat even iOS to start. And being so many Distro they are fighting against their own interests. Unix always had a place in Server status but that can't do much when consumers don't know much about it and a GUI is only good if there are more software Brand names that support it to get it well used. So there are more then just O/S that is keeping Linux back they need to step up to the plate and become just One Linux to really give Windows a run for it's money but as of now they can't do that.

Nothing is secure as one my think this is short shortsightedness and with alot of pitfalls. With eyes closed - you'll be robbed blind before you know it. If site security is lacking no one is safe even yourself. It's all these users using the Admin account clicking on all those popups and ads that cause themselves to become hacked not the O/S itself it takes someone to actively clicking on those trapped sites and software to cause the infections it can't do it by itself to cause or spread the infections to others.

 

Eh, it seems you're really confused on how distros operate and why there are so many in the first place. None of them need to have any commercial interests to do well, and most of the time a district is made to suite the needs of a particular group (Kali for security testing, Unbuntu/Mint for easy desktop use, Arch if you want to DIY it, etc). This is all forgetting that Linux itself is just the kernel and not the OS itself (hence why all the distorts); a better comparison would be Linux vs Windows NT (though NT is only found on Windows machines). Personally I've had zero hardware issues with using Linux on any of my computers or any computers of friends and family; it was bad several years ago (decade or two?), but it's hard to come up with a hardware criticism these days on consumer hardware. And I'm pretty sure even the most tech illiterate users know how to use Google .

Anyway, so long as a particular OS runs the software a user wants, it's a fine OS.

(Oh, you forgot that Android is Linux and outnunbers iOS.. )

 

And also highly vulnerable.

 

It can be; it suffers the same issue as Windows in that it's a popular OS that is profitable to code malware for.

Hence why it's so important to secure the user as well as the computer/phone.

 

Exactly. I couldn't make this point in my first post due to a time constraint, but one should not assume that because Android has a basis in Linux that it is inherently more secure. Ironically, Android is a lot like a Windows PC - highly configurable but you can get screwed really badly if you're not careful.

 

Relevant:

Not so much that this quote is from the FBI, but more the fact of the matter, which has been mentioned several times in this thread, is that the operator of said device is almost always the biggest security risk.

 

I'm really not a fan boy of any particular OS I like all OS's whether that be Linux, Android, Unix, Apple OS's or Windows OS's, or even RISC OS lol

So I guess in a nutshell as long as the OS is up to date then they have about the same level of security.

I have a Linux on my main computer but all the others are on Windows 7 as Linux doesn't tend to support things like printers and "some" other external pieces of hardware very well.

Theres are pro's and cons to all OS's.

Just out of interest is there any software available to where you can design a desktop? I'm thinking about seeing I can do some work on the old RISC OS and design some ideas and stuff for a new modern looking RISC OS.

Thanks for all your replies

 

Comparison is like Apples to Oranges, but the truth is Windows became the standard and doesn't require fanboys to say much about it. One can speak Linux til they are blue but Windows is here to stay indefinitely regardless of what one wants to think. Revisionist of history doesn't change the history of Windows becoming widespread. And again trying to bring up Apples to Oranges in Android is what people do when they are at a lost for reply. What one needs to so is plan and think ahead is how well will it be supported in the software updates and that is all you know as Software development is not free for good software aka Microsoft Office-everyone wants to think they are MS Office but in the end they aren't Office and there is only one MS Office. One just has to look at the Pirated software Window O/S and MS Office are the most sought after software and that is all you need to know. If Windows and MS Office wasn't that valued they why Pirate it? Because is it valuable and everyone wants it they don't need to really do much to get the word out.

 

You lost me... I genuinely couldn't make sense of that

 

I can't really follow either, even as someone who develops proprietary software for a living...

 

Android is way more secure than Windows or a normal Linux distro with sandboxing, blocking root access, and granting permissions for extra access. Even if you blindly give permissions to non-trusted apps, hackers can do minimal damage with the blocked root access. Worst case they steal your photos/videos, contact list, or messages or track your location. Downside to this security method is limitation to what apps can do but it doesn't really matter for the average joe.

Microsoft is pushing uwp which is quite similar. I can see them blocking non-uwp apps on Windows 10 by default in a couple of years into the future.

 

Problem here is android is on the Smart Phone only and Windows runs more is not all system around the world. So until Android can do what Windows can do talking about Android vs Windows is Apples to Oranges. Android already had it shares of malware and to say it is more secure is a falsehood in itself. Once you run a app that guarantees you gave it permission to infect your Phone. And with the amount of users now days they blindly do that already just by reading the news about breaches in Android user news. It call comes down to the user lack of knowledge or refusing to know and research what they use before using it. The software is only good as the person clicking on the apps or .exe files beyond that the computer only does what you want it to do and blaming it for something the user does is putting their head where the sun doesn't shine.

 

If apple and oranges comparisons are this awful, maybe don't compare desktop Linux distros to iOS?

-------------------

Anywho, with the push towards webapps, soon or later the OS you're running won't really matter (or rather matter less than they do now).

I'll refrain from any more fanning the flames from now on

 

If you want a secure Mobile OS, use Windows Phone because no one bothers touching WP since market share is <1%. I'd wager Wp is more secure than Android and iOS.

 

wannaCry?

Spoiler

No, I'm not trolling. Just saying windows users are and have traditionally been at a higher risk of virus and malware than other OS's.

 

Windows due to its large user base will always be the target of a higher percentage of attacks. That being said, that vulnerability was patched a few months before WCry hit. The systems that were victims were unpatched or outdated Windows XP.

You are making a good case for "security through obscurity" and I'm not saying the WCry attacks weren't massive or unimportant, but it is also a good example that often, a vulnerable system is vulnerable not because the latest version of the OS was vulnerable, but rather because it was not up to date or a no longer supported version was used. Windows XP is so old by now that if you are still using it, it should be on air gaped machines. I've worked at some branches of the government of my country and when your lab equipment costs > 100 000$ and requires Windows XP, you will still use XP, but we had very clear IT policies about these computers not being networked and how to transfer data from the Windows XP computer to other computers.

You are entirely right that Windows users are exposed to a higher number of threats, but a patched operating system and safe practices are worth a lot.

I agree, but Microsoft itself seems to have abandoned WP, so I'd stay away from it for that reason. I used to have a WP8 phone, but when it was time to change, I said screw it and got an Android because Microsoft seemed to be doing everything it could to kill WP rather than try to support it. They were late to the game and throwing money at it and devs to get the apps there may have made it worthwile, but that's the one thing they didn't do...

 

Linux. All the malware authors focus their energy on Windows peasants.

 

Not quite allllll of them...

 

Haven't seen anyone get hit by it though. This is just a normal thing in Linuxland. Post exploit and get it fixed before anyone has a chance to use it. Because of what I said above

 

That's the kinda response I would expect from closed minds. Why don't you just do a simple search and Linux isn't immune to this problem. If you want no risk stop using internet and disconnect from the internet then.

 

So the mere existence of a vulnerability is enough to get hit by it. Got it.

FYI, there are a lot of vulnerabilities that do not get reported.

As a sidenote, I've seen two reports of someone getting hit by ransomware in Linux land. One was by a Gentoo user running firefox as root (lol) and the other was a sysadmin running software from 2007.

So uhhhh yeah.