The answer is easy and for sure Ubuntu is much safer than Windows and also Mac OS. The same doesn't seem to apply to the Windows family as the configuration of librarys and applications are the same across variants. We can see this from the vulnerability reports that are reported, in that even if a widely used application or library is found to be vulnerable that exposure is usually limited because of configuration options to only a few distributions. One of the key advantages of Linux is that there are a plethora of different distributions, while an attack may be exploited across a number of different distributions rarely will it affect all. The key point to take here is that it is the mono-culture that is really at fault. The problem being that when we compare the security of Windows with Linux the argument is always trotted out that because Windows has such a market domination, that the attackers target Windows and if Linux had the same level of usage then it would be found just as vulnerable. There has been a lot of debate over whether a open environment is intrinsically more secure than a closed environment. A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link.Īlso, regardless of OS, no system is secure if you have physical access to it ) We can't judge just on OS alone, plenty of security flaws relate to bad user practices, social engineering and just plain ignorance. Windows used to have many exploitable services running (but they've tightened up on that front a bit).
#Ubuntu vs mac os install#
This is Linus' Law, which states that "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow".Ī default Linux install is locked down: only essential services start.
#Ubuntu vs mac os code#
It is Open Source, which means the code can be looked over by anyone (mostly developers). Linux has this security built in from the ground up, making it more reliable and tightly integrated into the user experience.
#Ubuntu vs mac os Patch#
Windows UAC is the current implementation to restrict access to these system files and settings, it's a patch to try resolve a fundamental design flaw.
#Ubuntu vs mac os free#
Windows gives free range to the system files. They're locked down and can not be edited by the casual user. In Linux, all your system files are owned by root. Linux, on the other hand, was built with a multi-user architecture. Windows was designed, back in the day, as a single-user system. Users are idiots who can be convinced to do almost anything if you dress it up with enough pomp or make it look like they're going to get something worthwhile from the process. And the real flaw in all of this is the users. A malicious app running as a limited user can still do a whole load of damage. There's no reason why a trojan or worm can't work in Linux. It's hard to justify writing an exploit, trojan, worm, etc when you could write one for Windows in the same time and catch a lot more people.īut we can't be complacent. Sounds bleak but there are fewer people using one particular open source application. The turnaround for patching security holes does seem shorter than closed source software. Even better is they sometimes include patches that can be immediately tested and distributed. Thankfully, most people do report any flaws they find. They don't have to report anything they find, they could just write exploits for the hole. Open source enthusiasts usually tout security but it does also let people right into the system. It's only since Vista where that's trying to be reversed and tightened with things like UAC. This is huge because any application, any exploit in an application could run as Administrator. Their account (and, more importantly, anything running as their account) could do anything to any file without a check. Even with the invention of NT and a role/privilege system, default installs would plonk users as king of the hill. Windows has had a single-user ethos for a very long time.