Windows is quite secure these days. Arguably more secure than Linux.
And I think they're probably right (although I'm not a security professional).
How about the opinion of people who have nothing to win nor lose ?
The people who think that Linux security is fine also make arguments, but those arguments are much less detailed (and much less convincing IMHO), such as the frequently-made argument that the fact that Linux's source code is readily available at no cost to anyone who wants to search it for security holes means that Linux's security will tend to be better than the security of systems whose source code is held secret. I mean, sure, if that were the only thing we knew about operating systems and we were forced to choose an OS based on that single piece of information, we'd choose one of the open-source ones, but the persuasiveness of that argument is more than cancelled out when we consider all the other things we know, such as the fact that many exploitable vulnerabilities have been found in Linux that examination of old versions of the source code reveal have been present for decades.
>How about the opinion of people who have nothing to win nor lose?
The question is complicated enough that my guess is that basically the only people who make the mental effort to resolve the question are people with a stake in it.
How many people for example who do not have a loved one with the cancer or a unusually high risk for that cancer and who do not hope to advance their careers as cancer-curers or cancer-preventers take the trouble to learn about the diagnosis and treatment of a particular kind of cancer?
Shall I take each point and explain why they are bullshit ? Probably not, but do tell me. This kind of post is a perfect example of the bullshit I spoke about.
Just a quote to illustrate:
The Linux kernel's size grows exponentially across each release, and it can be thought of as equivalent to running all user space code as root in PID 1, if not even more dangerous.
When two sentences later it says, "it can be thought of as equivalent to running all user space code as root in PID 1", it is elaborating on "no isolation . . . whatsoever". Specifically, it is saying that the organization of kernel code is analogous to organizing userspace so that all userspace code run as root in a single process.
The author of the madaidans site BTW is a Whonix and open-source developer, so how is it in his self-interest to criticize Linux's security? There is no indication anywhere on the site that the author or anyone else want to sell the reader anything.
I mean this very sincerely: The day Microsoft's products are actually secure is the day I'm out of a job.
AD is just a fancy interface to LDAP with Kerberos, that sound familiar in any way?
The big difference is that a breach of any single Entra ID connected service doesn’t give attackers widespread access to unrelated systems sharing the same tenant. For comparison, once you’ve got a foothold on an Active Directory domain member, it’s surprisingly easy to move horizontally to the rest of the network.
Can Firefox still write to ~/.profile if there's a buffer overrun somewhere for example? Did I curl | sh some random shit 50 times since December?
What is security even?