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.

Why ubuntu vs mac