> Yes, but that's not because of Windows itself
Come on. There’s a reason Windows users all want to install crappy security products: they’ve been routinely having their files encrypted and held for ransom for the last decade.
I have a similar disdain for security bloatware with questionable value, but one actually effective corporate IT strategy is using one of those tools to operate a whitelist of safe software, with centralized updates
In Windows land it's pretty much expected that you go to random websites, download random executables, ignore the "make changes to your computer?" warnings and pretty much give the exe full permission to do anything. It's very much been the standard software install workflow for decades now on Windows.
In the Linux/BSD world, while you can do the above, people generally don't. Generally, they stick to trusted software sources with centralized updates, like your second point. In this case I don't think it's a matter of capability, both Windows and Unix-land is capable of what you're suggesting.
I think phishing is generally much less effective in Max/Linux/BSD world because of this.
And no one would pipe a script downloaded with wget/curl directly into bash.
And nobody would copy a script from a code-formatted block on a page, paste it directly into their terminal and then run it.
Im not going to go so far as to claim that these behaviors are as common as installing software on Windows, but they are still definitely common, and all could lead to the same kinds of bad things happening.
I think though that the culture of robust repositories and package managers is MUCH more prominent on Mac/iOS/Linux/FreeBSD. It's coming to Windows too with the new(er) Windows store stuff, so hopefully people don't become too resistant to that.
Basically any userspace program can read your .aws, .ssh, .kube, etc... The user based security model desktops have is the real issue.
Compare that with Android and iOS for instance. No one needs anti-virus bloatware, just because apps are curated and isolated by default.
It comes from the 1990s and early 2000s. Back then, Windows was a laughingstock from a security point of view (for instance, at one point connecting a newly installed Windows computer to the network was enough for it to be automatically invaded). Both Windows and Linux have become more secure since then.
> Basically any userspace program can read your .aws, .ssh, .kube, etc... The user based security model desktops have is the real issue. Compare that with Android and iOS for instance. No one needs anti-virus bloatware, just because apps are curated and isolated by default.
Things are getting better now, with things like flatpak getting more popular. For instance, the closed-source games running within the Steam flatpak won't have any access to my ~/.aws or ~/.ssh or ~/.kube or etc.
But most of Windows falling to this is that it’s what people use. The only platform that is somewhat actually protected against attacks is the iPhone - the Mac can easily be ransomwared it’s just the market is so small nobody bothers attacking it; no ROI.
Yes, average Windows users are significantly less tech literate due to obvious reasons and there are way more of them. This create a very lucrative market.
How is desktop Linux somehow inherently particularly more secure than Windows?