Suggesting that users switch to Linux as a "fix" for the security issues faced by Windows or Mac OS X is a little like suggesting that users buy a Honda vehicle as a "fix" for Fords being stolen more frequently, or suggesting somebody switch banks because one bank has been robbed less than another. Linux, Windows, and Mac OS X are all operating systems, and they each have pros and cons--but they all have security weaknesses.

Is Linux inherently more secure? That is debatable--as evidenced by the frequent debates on the subject. There are certainly some things about the core operating system that may make it harder to exploit with some attacks or malware. But, the "most secure operating system" is the one the user is most familiar with so they know what security controls are available and how to use them.

Dave Marcus, director of advanced research and threat intelligence for , points out that the security model of the Linux OS won't necessarily protect it against common malware attacks. Phishing attacks, Trojans, and other malware exploits that target data can hit the jackpot just fine without having to escalate privileges or obtain root access.

Security is more a result of user awareness and behavior. Risky behavior is risky behavior regardless of the operating system.

The reality is that Linux is not more secure. It is simply less targeted. The fallacious belief that it is inherently secure is the same sort of faulty logic that's getting Mac users in trouble now. The Mac culture has been conditioned that security is not an issue, and now that the OS is being targeted by malware attacks the users are unprepared to recognize or respond to threats.