Computer software vendors, typically advocates of the closed source development model have claimed in the past that Linux is inherintly insecure because the open source development model permits any hacker to view the code and plan a large-scale attack on a large number of seemingly vulnerable systems.

However, most of this research is either performed or funded by the companies whom make software that will not benefit from, or could be potentially harmed by the open source or free software movement. In retropsect, this makes most of this reserach largely a product of fallacy. Another term to describe this collection of lies would be FUD, short for Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.

Over the years, Microsoft has been the number one uncontested attacker of the Linux operating system and its proponents. Microsoft claims Linux is insecure because of the "open" model and the lack of a strong corporate base. However, open source advocates counter this statement by noting the strong backing from IBM, Dell, and Hewlett-Packard, of which the notoriety is in order.

Most Windows proponents claim the only legible reason for the almost innumerable volume of security threats to the Windows platform is because of the huge installed base, which equals out to be somewhere near 92% of the entire desktop PC market. However, history suggests otherwise. A good example that proves the obsolescence of this theory would be the Apache versus Microsoft IIS web server market share. The Apache web server occupies about two-thirds of the web server market share . And yet, IIS is still beleagured with attacks to their web servers. Research ventures to note that about 95% of the attacks on the Apache server are on Windows machines, yet almost 80% of all Apache servers are ran atop the Linux operating system.

This security article is a stub. Please help this wiki by expanding this article.