Windows is More Secure than Linux - Chris Titus Tech
video description
Date: 2022-03-21
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 10
Александр
I think you counter arguments are also not so strong, in fact.
1. You cannot just sum up vulnerabilities for different Windows versions, because when a new one is discovered, it usually applies to the last 2-3 Windows versions (sometimes more). So this is not correct.
2. You cannot also just sum up vulnerabilities in Adobe Acrobat and such software with OS vulnerabilities, because for successful attack the user must often have BOTH of them simultaneously. I don't say it's rare, but I mean that we can't just say -hey, let's add these numbers too-.
3. You say Linux kernel is well expected and checked by dozens of thousands of developers all over the world, I agree on this. But you can't say the same about the utilities for Linux (analogs for Adobe Acrobat, for example). Usually the teams working on these are smaller and often people don't get paid for it and write that in spare time, also there is a very, very vast assortment of such programs, so they are not event close to Adobe Acrobat by popularity, and as a result no one inspects bugs in them seriously, while the users are still at risk.
4. Finally, I don't believe that MS never does proactive code inspection
Of course it's wrong to say that Linux is insecure, but still the article has somewhat true behind it: MS has a lot of people and a lot of money, as you mentioned, and it can really make secure products if only it wills to do so.
reply
I think you counter arguments are also not so strong, in fact.
1. You cannot just sum up vulnerabilities for different Windows versions, because when a new one is discovered, it usually applies to the last 2-3 Windows versions (sometimes more). So this is not correct.
2. You cannot also just sum up vulnerabilities in Adobe Acrobat and such software with OS vulnerabilities, because for successful attack the user must often have BOTH of them simultaneously. I don't say it's rare, but I mean that we can't just say -hey, let's add these numbers too-.
3. You say Linux kernel is well expected and checked by dozens of thousands of developers all over the world, I agree on this. But you can't say the same about the utilities for Linux (analogs for Adobe Acrobat, for example). Usually the teams working on these are smaller and often people don't get paid for it and write that in spare time, also there is a very, very vast assortment of such programs, so they are not event close to Adobe Acrobat by popularity, and as a result no one inspects bugs in them seriously, while the users are still at risk.
4. Finally, I don't believe that MS never does proactive code inspection
Of course it's wrong to say that Linux is insecure, but still the article has somewhat true behind it: MS has a lot of people and a lot of money, as you mentioned, and it can really make secure products if only it wills to do so.
reply
MiNdCaNdY
Hmmm, from a technical perspective maybe it's more secure, but maybe we're forgetting the human factor? I mean if Debian has so many vulnerabilities isn't it an indication that there have been more attempts to exploit and therefore more have been found? And since most big business is running linux servers, aren't more hackers out there skilled at breaking into linux systems? So if most hackers are targeting linux systems, and run across some Joe schmoe who has less than ideal security, it's an easy opportunity for him to get in and get what he wants. And this makes it so much easier when they send malicious packets to thousands of systems out there. I think in that sense it's more vulnerable.
reply
Hmmm, from a technical perspective maybe it's more secure, but maybe we're forgetting the human factor? I mean if Debian has so many vulnerabilities isn't it an indication that there have been more attempts to exploit and therefore more have been found? And since most big business is running linux servers, aren't more hackers out there skilled at breaking into linux systems? So if most hackers are targeting linux systems, and run across some Joe schmoe who has less than ideal security, it's an easy opportunity for him to get in and get what he wants. And this makes it so much easier when they send malicious packets to thousands of systems out there. I think in that sense it's more vulnerable.
reply
solotechoregon
Psst...i think microsoft opened it's source in 2015... What is your evidence that windows is less secure...btw 2 of the largest classes of security flaws (buffer over/under) and man in the middle generally aren't dependant on the target systems (exploiting most often protocols).
reply
Psst...i think microsoft opened it's source in 2015... What is your evidence that windows is less secure...btw 2 of the largest classes of security flaws (buffer over/under) and man in the middle generally aren't dependant on the target systems (exploiting most often protocols).
reply
Merlas
minute 4:40 that is not a dumb article, i can search the source code for the linux and think alot of ways how to hack it, while in windows i need to test it on multiple devices to see if hacks works, because with no source code you dont know what vulnerabilites it can have
reply
minute 4:40 that is not a dumb article, i can search the source code for the linux and think alot of ways how to hack it, while in windows i need to test it on multiple devices to see if hacks works, because with no source code you dont know what vulnerabilites it can have
reply
Taufiq
You're just ranting no facts no, reasons? The fact that windows are a paid product there are people dedicated and paid to find and fix flaws where else most devs for Linus have other paid jobs and in their free time look for(very unlikely) flaws and fix them.
reply
You're just ranting no facts no, reasons? The fact that windows are a paid product there are people dedicated and paid to find and fix flaws where else most devs for Linus have other paid jobs and in their free time look for(very unlikely) flaws and fix them.
reply
Taizun
Hey Chris, you mentioned that the RedHat kernels are the ones that security conscious companies use, is there a distro of Linux that uses this kernel ? And is it user friendly ? I've just switched over from Windows and would like to know more about this
reply
Hey Chris, you mentioned that the RedHat kernels are the ones that security conscious companies use, is there a distro of Linux that uses this kernel ? And is it user friendly ? I've just switched over from Windows and would like to know more about this
reply
Eli
I actually had a coworker try to make the whole -closed source is more secure because no one can see the code- argument once when I asked him why he preferred Windows server to Linux. All I could think to say in response was -that.... is a point.-
reply
I actually had a coworker try to make the whole -closed source is more secure because no one can see the code- argument once when I asked him why he preferred Windows server to Linux. All I could think to say in response was -that.... is a point.-
reply
Kabir
windows is not safe, it has destroyed my PC because of a virus, all my files got encrypted and i had nothing left. because of that now i have switched to linux and had been using ubuntu and its working good. i will never call windows secure!!
reply
windows is not safe, it has destroyed my PC because of a virus, all my files got encrypted and i had nothing left. because of that now i have switched to linux and had been using ubuntu and its working good. i will never call windows secure!!
reply
john
Yah, but installing softwares on windows is easy. Like I get my job done for stock trading on windows. Linux is good but supports less hi end softwares that need for technical analysis. I have many things to do than learning new os and codes.
reply
Yah, but installing softwares on windows is easy. Like I get my job done for stock trading on windows. Linux is good but supports less hi end softwares that need for technical analysis. I have many things to do than learning new os and codes.
reply
Adrian
Windows is secure..... It's securely -ucked. Do you know how messed up Win 10 had to be for you to make me have to switch to Linux. I was happy with my Win 7 but they had to go and mess up a good thing. Even Win Millennium wasn't that bad.
reply
Windows is secure..... It's securely -ucked. Do you know how messed up Win 10 had to be for you to make me have to switch to Linux. I was happy with my Win 7 but they had to go and mess up a good thing. Even Win Millennium wasn't that bad.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
