I've been wondering for the last couple of days about the proposition that I use where I state that GNU/Linux is far more secure than Windows among other things because it's designed to be so (a real muti-user OS by design, real Networked OS by design, etc) plus other customs that we *NIX users have like not using the root account to play Frozen Bubble and so on.
Now, there are people that say that it's just that GNU/Linux is less attractive to malware software because there are so few of us GNU/Linux users. I have always thought that this is crap but anyway....
Now, think about the things that FLOSS developers get to do:
- Crack encrypted DVDs
- Allow for communication between Microsoft Windows hosts (with a twisted SMB protocol) and *NIX hosts before Microsoft (reluctantly... but with a lot of PR spin, as usual) released the documentation about it
- Synchronize with iTunes
- Running GNU/Linux on basically any piece of equipment worthy of running it (with or without support by the vendor).. and some others that aren't worthy but....
- Brake every DRM mechanism ever built
And the list goes on and on. No matter what the developers wanted to restrict, there has always being a way to crack it.
Now... if FLOSS developers are able to do basically just everything they set themselves to do, wouldn't it be possible that malware developers will get get to do the same with the security barriers set on a GNU/Linux (or *NIX for that matter) no matter how hard we try to restrain them?
I just wonder