Uhh no. The vast majority of that is dependent on the competency of the administrator. While it's certainly true that Linux administrators have a higher technical working knowledge than Windows and Android administrators (due in no small part to the much steeper learning curve to use Linux) on average, thus the average Linux administrator is better able to control firewall policies and access restrictions, etc., than the average Windows or Android administrator. Just being Linux doesn't make it more secure.BaronVerde wrote: ↑Sat, 23. Oct 21, 18:53Again, a Linux desktop or server takeover without any help from inside or the hacker having local access has still to be made, which is not the case for Windows and Android, right ?
You see, the Linux OS can be easily made just as vulnerable as anything else by your average idiot that does things like disabling UAC on Windows, running everything as admin, disabling the firewall, etc., etc. - all the stupid things you see in your favorite cnet blogs and spiceworks forums. You think these people are going to be suddenly brilliant when they sit down in front of the supposedly more secure Linux OS? And IF users suddenly switched off to Linux instead of Windows that the malicious actors won't shift the main focus of their attention onto Linux? You think those cnet blogs won't change from Disable UAC to Give yourself root access and disable password requirements and other equally stupid things?
Security challenges for ANY operating system is largely dependent on the user base.
And the thing is, you know this.