Linux Vs windows OS security

[BlackHatCoiner]

Linux is just an alternative, using Linux doesn't nesscatrily mean you understand security, and how it works.

It's not the canon, but most people purchase computers with pre-installed OSes. I've never seen any of those having a Linux distro, only Windows. Since these are the hackers' victims, they will spend more time to write their malicious software there. They'll focus on Windows. Or a better example: How many businesses do you know that use Linux?

Having Linux doesn't mean you understand security, but since most don't, there are definitely less dangers to be aware of.

[Welsh]

Another point is the term "virus" is such a broad term these days, and is often used for unwanted programs, bloatware, adware, and all sorts these days since most of those are detrimental to the users experience either through collecting data or hogging computer resources. Unless, we get down nitty gritty in defining what types of viruses or what you personally consider a virus, and what sort of risks are associated with them when you compare Linux to Windows, it'll be hard to really get down to the differences between the two. Since, I think the definition of viruses' these days have been blurred because a security specialist will definitely have a different view point what defines something as a virus compared to the general consumer.

If your definition of viruses' is unwanted software, which could be detrimental to the computer itself then Linux is definitely as susceptible, since all it would take is downloading something from the internet, and then that either installs a dependency that touches upon the issues highlighted above or the program itself monitors or uses computer resources for something you didn't originally intend. The beauty of Linux is you usually have to authorise this by elevating admin privileges every time, where as this isn't the case in Windows. Although, it's also worth mentioning you can prevent this behaviour in Linux, and therefore make it less secure.

It's not the canon, but most people purchase computers with pre-installed OSes. I've never seen any of those having a Linux distro, only Windows. Since these are the hackers' victims, they will spend more time to write their malicious software there. They'll focus on Windows. Or a better example: How many businesses do you know that use Linux?

Businesses? Most will be using Linux servers to run their website etc. Most banks will be using Linux. Although, I do agree with you which I've partly hinted to in my above reply, that the attack surface is definitely in the favour of Linux, i.e Linux is much less targetted at least from a general consumer view point than Windows. However, most businesses will be using Linux in some capacity, whether that's using them directly themselves (less likely) or using products/services that run on Linux.

I'd speculate that your more likely to have script kiddies, and less sophisticated attacks on Windows than Linux. There's a certain technical requirement that needs to be met, since usually the more sophisticated you're the bigger targets you go for, therefore Linux predominately being used by businesses rather than your average computer user, it would likely be subject to more advanced attackers. I can't prove that, I don't have any data to back that up, it's largely an assumption on my part, but I think there's some logical merit to that.

Don't think I know many companies that offer servers to offer them via Windows, they're almost always exclusively Linux, since the overheads are much less especially running Linux in headless, and therefore they run more efficiently. Plus, there are more things you can do with a Linux operating system it being open source, so if you're providing servers you can optimise it based on client needs, as well as security.

I do know what your getting at though, most businesses at least lower level businesses won't be using Linux as their daily operating system, while they probably still do use Linux indirectly for hosting their websites etc.

[BernyJB]

2. Some Linux based distributions (or "distros", as they're called in the community) strive to be as close to Windows as possible, and some don't. At that, if you choose to use Ubuntu, or Linux Mint, or MX Linux, your experience is gonna be arguably much better than if you try to start using Arch, or LFS.

Worth noting, that complexity doesn't mean more secure. Though, a distro which allows advanced configuration can be made to be more secure, or depending on the knowledge of the user editing it, could actually make it less secure.

Absolutely! More complexity usually means better efficiency for a given task or number of tasks, or, more often than not, just a way for the developers to show off their "neck-beards". I haven't come up to a distro specifically designed with crypto in mind (or else I'd be all over it), but short of it, security and complexity are two completely different things.

3. Linux is, as a rule, way safer than windows. Then, as it was pointed above, your OS will be as safe as you make it. A whole lot of people move BILLIONS of dollars a day on Windows without a problem. It's true that Linux based distros get no viruses, but it's also true, if you do get one, there is also no antivirus software for it (other than ClamAV, as far as I know), so it's a double edged sword.

I'm not a fan of saying that as a general rule of thumb Linux is safer, it wildly differs on how the user uses the computer, which can definitely range wildly among users. For example, if you're downloading from unverified, and untrustworthy sources, while probably not equally at risk (due to the attack surface that Windows has), however it should be assumed that you're at equal risk.

Although, Linux viruses definitely do exist, and even if we assume the possibility of a Linux virus gaining elevated permissions, there's still issues with exploiting programs that have vulnerabilities themselves. For example, your web browser which could potentially be a security risk. I would say that Linux is more hardened, due to some of the implementations of root, as well as the attack surface being much less than Windows. Although, bare in mind that there's definitely a legitimate risk for viruses etc, as Linux is still targetted by malicious users, since most servers are running on Linux. Most banks use Linux etc.

4. It's also true there are very few viruses meant to work on Linux, but the real reason (again, as far as I know) is that Linux has a very strong admin policy, and nobody can act as an admin without a password. So, ultimately, Linux based distros are as safe as the password you use on them.

Right, partially correct I'd say, but ultimately security comes down to how you use the operating system, the credentials used, how you store those credentials etc.  

Yeah, I should've said "all else (or "the user")  being equal". Sorry.
True, the user is always the biggest variable in a computer system. You can't expect your system to be "secure" if you're not.

5. As a rule of thumb, Linux based distros are much less demanding on hardware than Windows, which allows you to run them on older PC's without a problem (the one I'm using now is 6 years old, and works beautifully).

Yeah, if you're using legacy hardware then Linux will likely run out of box more than say Windows 10 would. Windows 10 needs additional work such as drivers etc, whereas Linux already has some decent coverage on the already implemented ones.

Let me tell you my experience: I had a 17" Hewlett-Packard laptop. Quad core, 16 gigs of ram, back in 2014.
It wasn't an old computer. In fact, it was so new that I got mad at Debian because they still didn't have free versions for its drivers, but they didn't allow the use of non-free drivers.
 Used it on Fedora without issue for a couple of years. Not once I saw CPU usage go over 3% (I always run conky on my computers), even when I was running 12 virtual workspaces.
Then I switched to Windows 8.1 because I needed to run Solidworks on it. Whithin a month it blew 2 hard drives.

6. As beginner friendly as they may be, all Linux based distros have a learning curve, and you have to be willing to learn how to use them.

Which, if you aren't an advanced user is becoming simpler, and simpler as time goes on. Ubuntu, and the closer to Windows experience distros have come leaps, and bounds in recent years in terms of simplicity.

Yeah, I've seen that, and to be honest, I have mixed feelings about it.
Some distros (like Manjaro, for example) made strides to become friendlier to newbie users, yet still  can't get rid of some of Arch's quirks, like their repo lists getting corrupted all the time, while others have become so bloated they're a nightmare to use (still better than Windows though).
I was first introduced to Fedora (then "Fedora Core"), I think in 2002 or 2003. Just couldn't use it at all. Then I started on Ubuntu (with Gnome, WITHOUT Unity) and loved it. Sure, it was different from Windows, but in no way was "difficult" to use.

[PrivacyG]

Using exclusively free and open source software is nearly impossible, especially when we're talking about hardware driver (such as GPU and network card).

As far as I can remember, the original Debian install CD is exclusively free and open source.  That is, unless they lie.  I am confident this is written on their homepage or downloads page somewhere.

I have tried it many times before and I was able to get it working with just that installed.  For the computers I could not get the Wireless card working with it, I just used Ethernet.

Now about the GPU, I just did not install the drivers and ran Debian with whatever I get as default.  It surely slows down the system overall and has bugs or glitches every now and then, you also get stuck with a low display resolution and all that, but I take it as the price I pay for not accepting non-free stuff.  Anyway, say you need a non-free package to get your WiFi card working.  I would imagine this is still so much better than running a distro that comes with non-free packages by default.

Some distros (like Manjaro, for example) made strides to become friendlier to newbie users, yet still  can't get rid of some of Arch's quirks, like their repo lists getting corrupted all the time, while others have become so bloated they're a nightmare to use (still better than Windows though).

I do not know what to say about this.  I am not sure Manjaro would even be a better choice over Windows.  As far as I know, it is like switching from Google Pixel to a Xiaomi phone.  You just move from United States spying on you to China.  I can however just not deny how slick and attractive Manjaro's user interface is.

-
Regards,
PrivacyG

[jerry0]

Does anyone here only use linux as their main pc though?  Wouldn't that limit them from programs that require windows?

[pooya87]

5. As a rule of thumb, Linux based distros are much less demanding on hardware than Windows, which allows you to run them on older PC's without a problem (the one I'm using now is 6 years old, and works beautifully).

Yeah, if you're using legacy hardware then Linux will likely run out of box more than say Windows 10 would. Windows 10 needs additional work such as drivers etc, whereas Linux already has some decent coverage on the already implemented ones.

In addition to that, one of the main problems with running an OS on an old PC is lack of resources (low CPU clock, ancient GPU, low RAM). Almost all of these issues are addressed by changing the GUI. For example you could face slowness running Ubuntu but you could run Lubuntu on the same old PC very easily simply because the UI framework is different and is light.

Does anyone here only use linux as their main pc though?  Wouldn't that limit them from programs that require windows?

It depends on what you do. For example if you just surf the web, do some office work, run a bitcoin client and watch videos there is no difference.
But if you want to run certain games that don't run on Linux, use a certain application that doesn't have a Linux version (although most popular ones either have a release for Linux or have alternative equally good options),... then you will be limited but you can always dual boot.

[lovesmayfamilis]

Does anyone here only use linux as their main pc though?  Wouldn't that limit them from programs that require windows?

For Windows programs to work in Linux, you can install a VirtualBox on which the Windows system will be installed. Having allocated more than 4 gigabytes of RAM to Windows in VirtualBox, all programs should work correctly.
You can also install wine for Linux, which contains a set of libraries and various programs that allow you to run programs from Windows without using virtualization.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Businesses? Most will be using Linux servers to run their website etc. Most banks will be using Linux. Although, I do agree with you which I've partly hinted to in my above reply, that the attack surface is definitely in the favour of Linux, i.e Linux is much less targetted at least from a general consumer view point than Windows. However, most businesses will be using Linux in some capacity, whether that's using them directly themselves (less likely) or using products/services that run on Linux.

That's exactly what I meant. Businesses do use Linux, but the main target is the consumers plus the rest of the businesses that use Windows. That alone, encourages them to code malicious software mainly for Windows. (But, not exclusively)

I do know what your getting at though, most businesses at least lower level businesses won't be using Linux as their daily operating system, while they probably still do use Linux indirectly for hosting their websites etc.

That's also what I meant! 

Here in Greece, there are countless of merchants that run their business in Windows, but have a Linux hosting service. Also, another reason I hadn't thought of is gaming. There are lots of internet cafes where people enter personal information besides their game's login credentials, such as Facebook, phone number, even credit card details. Gaming doesn't comply with Linux.

[Crypt0Gore]

Does anyone here only use linux as their main pc though?  Wouldn't that limit them from programs that require windows?

I doubt that because Linux now supports many software unlike few years back, moreover many use their PC for browsing, watching movies and storing funds and Linux supports VLC player, multiple browsers and crypto wallets, can you tell me any software you think is not available on Linux and let's do some digging?.

[smartaction]

Linux is open source operating system. it is must secure then Windows. But the Linux operating system is a bit difficult to use which may make it difficult for you to use. But Windows operating system is controlled by Microsoft company and it is very easy to use which is why everyone is interested in using Windows, but if you want to use operating system to hold cryptocurrency then you can easily use both Windows and Linux. However, its safety always depends on you. If you can keep them secure, then they will be secure. No operating system can protect your crypto without your own secure knowledge.

[zasad@]

I read online that Linux OS is much more secured than windows OS so how about running a crypto wallet on Linux OS instead? Anyone running wallet on Linux OS on here? .

The smartest advice I've read on this forum is something like this: "If you don't know how to administer Linux OS, then Windows will be much safer for you." Better yet, use hardware wallets, they are safe on Windows if you like this operating system.

[Stalker22]

Does anyone here only use linux as their main pc though?  Wouldn't that limit them from programs that require windows?

It depends on your primary use of a personal computer. A lot of folks do use linux as their primary pc, but some of them are often in the midst of juggling multiple machines. But, I know that some people here use linux, and would like to be able to do so, (though I haven't yet met one who uses it exclusively).

I also believe that some of those who use windows exclusively could probably be coerced into using linux if they needed to use it, even if they did not use it as their main os. After all, windows has it's place, but it is not the only so and a linux based machine does the same things that a windows machine does.

[hearttouchy]

Windows is more widely used than linux, so hackers will exploit more than linux

[cabron]

Does anyone here only use linux as their main pc though?  Wouldn't that limit them from programs that require windows?

I doubt that because Linux now supports many software unlike few years back, moreover many use their PC for browsing, watching movies and storing funds and Linux supports VLC player, multiple browsers and crypto wallets, can you tell me any software you think is not available on Linux and let's do some digging?.

I use Linux mainly as my PC and my laptop. I have CLI so they are both Ubuntu base which is easier.
If a user really is used to windows software there is a program called WINE which they could install windows programs like photoshop. If you are also proficient in photoshop, its easier for you to learn GIMP which is a GNU Linux base program that is much like photoshop.

Whatever program there is in Windows, there is the same program for Linux users and they are mostly free. Even the Office such as Libre Office.

[BernyJB]

I do not know what to say about this.  I am not sure Manjaro would even be a better choice over Windows.  As far as I know, it is like switching from Google Pixel to a Xiaomi phone.  You just move from United States spying on you to China.  I can however just not deny how slick and attractive Manjaro's user interface is.

Anything is a better choice than Windows (though I might come through as a Windows hater for saying this, which I am  ). First, as said before, any Linux distro is open source, which automatically makes it better than Windows.
The bests phrase I read about it is: "With Windows you can work on your PC. With Linux you own it".

Also I'm not sure about the Xiaomi parallel. Manjaro is German...

Does anyone here only use linux as their main pc though?  Wouldn't that limit them from programs that require windows?

I do, and have been using Linux as my ONLY OS since 2009. I wouldn't touch Windows with a stick. About limits, sometimes it does, but most times it's quite the opposite. There are a lot of Linux apps to replace those found in Windows, in some cases even better than the Windows apps. And, contrarily to Windows, they're all free, which is never a bad thing. You just have to get used to a different method, that's it. For example, if I want a given Linux app, I do a search for best *** for linux, and I usually get dozens of apps to choose from.

5. As a rule of thumb, Linux based distros are much less demanding on hardware than Windows, which allows you to run them on older PC's without a problem (the one I'm using now is 6 years old, and works beautifully).

Yeah, if you're using legacy hardware then Linux will likely run out of box more than say Windows 10 would. Windows 10 needs additional work such as drivers etc, whereas Linux already has some decent coverage on the already implemented ones.

In addition to that, one of the main problems with running an OS on an old PC is lack of resources (low CPU clock, ancient GPU, low RAM). Almost all of these issues are addressed by changing the GUI. For example you could face slowness running Ubuntu but you could run Lubuntu on the same old PC very easily simply because the UI framework is different and is light.

True. And on Linux you have options. If you have a super-duper PC and you like the bling, you can run KDE, and it'll work great. I have an old one with a celeron, and don't like bling at all, so I run Openbox, and love it.

Does anyone here only use linux as their main pc though?  Wouldn't that limit them from programs that require windows?

For Windows programs to work in Linux, you can install a VirtualBox on which the Windows system will be installed. Having allocated more than 4 gigabytes of RAM to Windows in VirtualBox, all programs should work correctly.
You can also install wine for Linux, which contains a set of libraries and various programs that allow you to run programs from Windows without using virtualization.

Yep. And you have the advantage (at least with VirtualBox) that you can limit the resources available to your guest OS, so you can protect your hardware. And some people claim (I haven't benchmarked it, nor would I know how to do it) that running it in seamless mode it runs even faster than natively.

I have tried it many times before and I was able to get it working with just that installed.  For the computers I could not get the Wireless card working with it, I just used Ethernet.

Now about the GPU, I just did not install the drivers and ran Debian with whatever I get as default.  It surely slows down the system overall and has bugs or glitches every now and then, you also get stuck with a low display resolution and all that, but I take it as the price I pay for not accepting non-free stuff.  Anyway, say you need a non-free package to get your WiFi card working.  I would imagine this is still so much better than running a distro that comes with non-free packages by default.

You might accept the trade-off, but most people wouldn't.

I wouldn't. That's why I switched to Fedora. The best feature Linux has is it has plenty of choices. Some have drivers problems. Most don't.

[Pmalek]

I'm talking about Trojan and malwares that can affect crypto wallets or even pc, it seems windows OS is the most affected compare to Linux OS.

Windows is more affected because it's got a wider userbase. It's more widely used compared to Linux or Mac. That's why the majority of malware and viruses is created to attack Windows machines. If the numbers in this article are correct, Windows has a market share of almost 75%. Linux only has 2%. macOS is believed to have 16%.

If you are someone who is creating malware for whatever reason, you would obviously want to infect as many people as possible. You won't get that by targeting Linux users. If the results were reversed, any the majority of computers were running Linux, hackers would have greater inventive attacking that OS. Plus, Linux users are more security oriented than the average Windows user no matter what the stats say.   

A question for the Linux users: Are you hardware components open-source ? Your software is, what about the hardware?
I assume that the hacks of the future will focus more on hardware exploits. That could open new attack vectors even against those who go open-source.

[tyz]

I read online that Linux OS is much more secured than windows OS so how about running a crypto wallet on Linux OS instead? Anyone running wallet on Linux OS on here? .

I am Linux user than almost a decade. And since 2011, since I've been in crypto, I've only been using wallets on Linux and I've never had any security issues. Windows is also more insecure because most viruses, malware and spyware are developed for Windows. That alone makes Windows more insecure than Linux or MacOS.

[Bitbtc8]

It doesn't matter where your wallet is installed malware affects Linux and Windows OS combine but windows OS is more vulnerable, I will choose windows OS and use my head as my antivirus over malware because antivirus can't safe your ass when it comes to real Trojans and malwares, thread carefully and you will be fine.

[JangoUnchained]

I love Linux for two reasons

1. Its fully transparency ( open source ).
2. Its light weight and faster.

This is flawless victory over windows OS as it's buggy and sluggish which you need higher ram size if you want things to speed up, also windows OS is fully closed source, as for security Linux is still better but not malware proof.