Replies

Because of the accessibility of the source code to everyone, it provides an equal opportunity for malicious attackers to find vulnerabilities and ways to exploit them.

If this is true then why does Windows, where people can't see the source, have even more vulnerabilities?

If this is true then why does Windows, where people can't see the source, have even more vulnerabilities?

Logical fallacy. There aren't "more vulnerabilities" in Windows (Linux Actually Less Secure Than Windows?, http://securityfocus.com/vulns/stats.shtml).

Despite the widely-held belief that the open-source operating system Linux is hands-down more secure than Microsoft, statistics gathered by leading security company SecurityFocus on their NTBugTraq site say differently. According to the most recent statistics, available up to August 2001, Windows 2000 Server had far fewer security vulnerabilities than Red Hat or Mandrake Linux - less than half as many, in fact. Sun's Solaris OS was tied with Win2000. This information is not a fluke. Looking back over the last five years, Microsoft NT and Win2000 servers had fewer security violations than Linux, despite being used more widely.

"If this is true then why does Windows, where people can't see the source, have even more vulnerabilities?"

Microsoft (historically) ignores flaws like democrats ignore communists spys. Once a flaw is widely publicized, everybody sits tight waiting for Microsoft to issue a security patch. This is known as security by obscurity. LINUX however is open source and is scrutinized by an army of really weird and talented people. If you find a flaw, some little elf fixes it pronto. Adam Smith's invisible hand is helped along by some other force - the fingers of network externality.