First, Linux was developed as a multi-user system. Therefore users are isolated from applications, files and directories that could damage the operating system. Each user has their own directory where system configuration and data files are stored. Another user cannot access or change anything within these directories without administrative access. This results in greater protection from system penetration from viruses, trojans, malware, etc because only the users files can be damaged while the overall system remains protected.

Next, as mentioned above, Linux was designed as a modular operating system. This means that most parts of the operating system operate independently of one another. As a result, a vulnerability in one part of the operating system may not harm another application on that same system. This is because few applications depend on one another to operate effectively.

Finally, unlike Windows which uses the RPC model, most Linux based distributions of programs have their network access turned off by default when they are installed on the users system. If the user wants the application to access the network, the user must manually activate this feature. The user is then required to clearly define the users and machines allowed to access the system. Even when Linux applications are installed with network access turned on by default (as some are), they are usually set up to ignore any requests from other machines on the network unless they are clearly defined by the user as previously mentioned. Additionally, Linux gives the user the ability to disable nearly all network-related RPC services and still have a fully functional machine.

 out of  found this valuable. Do you find this valuable?    

One has to question whether the attacks occur so often on Windows because of its overwhelming market share, or because there are flaws in its design? There are several reasons for this.

First, Windows has only recently developed a true multi-user system with Windows Vista and even that is debatable. Prior to that, malicious software was able to penetrate critical system programs or files, because Windows did not limit user access from these parts of the operating system. It was not until the release of Windows XP that Microsoft showed real effort to address these security issues. Windows XP did offer significantly better access restrictions and memory protection. However, Windows set the Administrator account as the default account. Therefore, the user has to set up a standard account which had limited system privileges. Most users did not create a standard account, but instead choose to run under their Administrator account. Windows made more improvements with Windows Server 2003, but it was still plagued by security vulnerabilities.

Next, Windows is monolithic by design unlike Linux, which is modular. A monolithic architecture is where processing, data and the user interface all reside on the same system. Microsoft builds most features offered by competitors into its operating systems. While this makes it harder for rivals to compete with Microsoft, the integration of the operating system exposes the user’s system to significant risks. A monolithic system can be unstable. You can introduce many risks when even one piece of the system is changed (intentionally or not). This can create a domino effect with other system applications. In this environment, even something as simple as adding a patch or security update can fix one part of Windows, but cause problems in others.

 out of  found this valuable. Do you find this valuable?