>linux 1837 vulnerabilities >macOS 1821 vulnerabilitie

>>60405315
We're safe because nobody uses Linux. It also has no software, reducing its attack surface considerably.

What about Windows, 18,371,821 vulnerabilities?

install Windows 8.1

File: C__Data_Users_DefApps_AppData_INTERNETEXPLORER_Temp_Saved Images_1480131428390.png (1MB, 400x800px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 400x800px

>>60405315
In TempleOS.

File: Capture.png (4KB, 505x56px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 505x56px

lincucks and macfags eternally btfo

>>60405351
After wannacry's infection, linux will be normie tier.

If my door's wide open and nobody wants to come in, I don't have to worry.

It's when it's closed and people try to get through the fucking chimney that I have to worry about it.

That's why I don't use Windows. I know for a fact macOS and Linux aren't that secure either, but who cares? Who's gonna fucking bother? I'd sooner get a trojan trying to play some new crappy game on Windows without paying 59.99 dolla.

>>60405504
If a malware a day didn't change anything during the XP era, what do you think the one-time infection of a mere 0.01% of Windows machines do? Only people who were running unpatched, obsolete versions were vulnerable, and this had no effect whatsoever on the ecosystem at large. I'm certainly not going to change my OS because some old Windows 3.1 box got hacked.

>>60405315
Vulnerabilities are nothing compared to a stupid userbase.

Apple has a buncha people who think they will never get viruses because "muh no antivirus needed" when they get pwnd just as easily by phishing scams, ransomware, and social engineering.

Linux users are a bit more skeptical when it comes to people so they are less likely to fall prey to this. They do their research, otherwise why would they even be using Linux in the first place.

>>60405446
Windows XP and 7 together have less than Mac OS X.

1. You're retarded.
2. The link is right in the post.
3. You're retarded.

>>60405315
how many undisclosed vulns does windows have?

File: vendors.png (103KB, 974x828px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 974x828px

>>60405315
>>60405495
>>60405793

>>60405744
> they get pwnd just as easily by phishing scams, ransomware, and social engineering
well, those aren't viruses

>>60405446
this

>>60405744
Exactly. Windows users are just mac users that can't afford a mac.

>>60405315
>every vulnerability is equally harmful
This is an outright lie

Also
>macOS rivals Linux
macOS confirmed for BSD master race

You need to take this numbers in to perspective.
Linux (kernel, that's what the list refers to):
1.4B android phones
majority of web servers
supercomputers
embedded devices

Windows:
1.25B devices (all versions of system)

OSX
Can't find exact number but percentage wise less than windows or linux.

OSX looks by far the worst considering that linux runs on a lot more devices, and has source readily available. When comparing number of vulnerabilities to number of devices running said software, linux actually doesn't look so bad. Also there is no telling how much additional issues windows has since there is no access to the source code. Everyone can download linux source and search for security issues, but same can't be done for windows.

>>60405821
How many undisclosed vulns does Linux have?

>>60405864
>Linux: 123 CVE's per product
>Microsoft: 11

>>60406142
Basically none, since the Source is out there.

>>60406171
>>60406142
winbabs grasping for straws

File: 1464241893402.jpg (78KB, 250x251px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 250x251px

>>60405864
>Vulnerabilities/Products
>microsoft 12
>Apple 33
>Linux 123

>>60406229
Apple and MS have more than 1 product tho

File: 1494639357604.png (570KB, 831x633px) Image search: [Google]

570KB, 831x633px

>>60406229

>>60406171
>>60406229
linux has only one product dickbag

>>60405315
Nothing wrong there, the open source community doing its job and find ton of bugs meanwhile with windows we have to wait nsa leaks to find critical bugs.

>>60406229
this means that statistically
something like calculator has a vuln

>>60406255
true

File: openbsd.jpg (210KB, 869x1338px) Image search: [Google]

210KB, 869x1338px

Thank god I am free of Wanblows and the systemd botnet

>>60405864
>four times the amount of products
>just over 20% more vulns
Lovely.

>>60406310
there's nothing wrong with systemd
and it's not "botnet"

>>60405944
Return to re ddit.

>>60406251
>can't read the number of products

>>60406375
>>60406041

>>60405475
Templeos has one huge vulnerability - it is vulnerable to evil satanic influences and deleusions. Also succubusses

>>60406481
the plural is actually succubi

>look mommy number is bigger than other number

>>60406368
is reddit filtered now? cause that's hilarious

>>60405315
>what are local privilege escalations (gnu+linux)
>what are remote privilege escalations (mac)

>>60407336
to reddit

>>60407770
"back to re ddit" is filtered

FreeBSD is so good it doesn't have a vulnerability. That's why it's not on the list.

>>60405315
>http://www.cvedetails.com/top-50-products.php

the thing is, in open source, you find vulnerabilities faster, a lot of people read the code.. it doesn't mean they're not in closed source.

>>60406368
fag

>>60405315
>all vulnerabilities have the same importance
>having a few amount of known / public vulnerabilities makes it secure
I hope you'll never get involved in anything related to security.

File: lol ms.png (23KB, 556x359px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 556x359px

>>60405315
>pic related from the same page

File: win10_vulnperc.png (22KB, 1223x292px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 1223x292px

windows 10

File: linux_vuln_perc.png (22KB, 1215x296px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 1215x296px

>>60408229
linux

>>60408229
>all dem winders 10 security "features"

top kek

>>60408024
>in open source, you find vulnerabilities faster, a lot of people read the code
Linux has been out for 25 years yet the CVE's keep coming.
qBittorrent has been out for a decade yet their release notes are still full of bug fixes. Can't even get a something as simple as a torrent client down -- something uTorrent managed to achieve to perfection in 391KB. (including Tetris)

Seems no amount of open source can beat incompetent devs.

>>60408299
sure thing, but do you think the closed source is safe? that you can't see the the shit doesn't make it nonexistent

>>60408183
So? They have products that have used the same name for 30 years. Doesn't mean they're actually the same product and should be grouped together, yet Windows 3.0 vulnerabilities would be grouped in with Windows 10 there.

Linux: One kernel
Mozilla: One browser
Debian/Redhat/Canonical/FedoraProject: One distro

Microsoft: Dozens of Windows versions going back 32 years. Dozens of Office versions going back 26 years. 12 browser versions going back 21 years. A dozen versions of Outlook going back 24 years. 9 versions of Exchange Server going back 24 years.

Microsoft has more depth in Age of Empires than half of those companies have in their core product.

File: jfkys.jpg (256KB, 1200x859px) Image search: [Google]

256KB, 1200x859px

>>60408524
>So?
>Microsoft = shit

There.

File: tech-god.jpg (204KB, 600x565px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 600x565px

>>60408590

>>60406366
Prove it.

>>60408451
Nothing is 100% safe. There could be someone watching you right now through a wormhole from the future. Patch that hole.
The only thing that matters are actual proven exploits, and FOSS not only doesn't show itself to be better than proprietary in that regard, it's shown itself to be worse. Seems "working for free" doesn't attract the best developers.

File: Dwi1.gif (3MB, 307x233px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 307x233px

>>60408683
>FOSS not only doesn't show itself to be better than proprietary in that regard, it's shown itself to be worse

See >>60408183
and >>60408229
and >>60408241

Also, proprietary not only doesn't show itself to be better than FOSS in that regard, it's shown itself to be worse

>>60408590
Yet Bill Gates is getting laid, which is more than you'll ever accomplish.

>>60408735
>Yet Bill Gates is getting laid

Virgin detected. Hi virgin.

>>60408733
>Also, proprietary not only doesn't show itself to be better than FOSS in that regard, it's shown itself to be worse
Really? So Mozilla having nearly half as many exploits in one FOSS browser as Microsoft does in their top 50 products shows that proprietary is worse?

>>60408766
>Really? So Mozilla having nearly half as many exploits in one FOSS browser as Microsoft does in their top 50 products shows that proprietary is worse?

>mozilla
>non-profit
>fraction of the resources and time compared to the vast wealth and reach of microsoft

Not doing your side any good, McShill

>>60408793
But it's open source! That means that exploits get fixed faster than proprietary! So Mozilla should have had zero after the first couple of days.
Yet they have half as much in one browser as Microsoft has in their top 50 products.

>>60405315
All sploits are the same and just liek eech uther yesh so kewl.

FOBTR.

>>60408793
You just admitted that Microsoft's proprietary model is better, having the resources to pay competent devs.