Would be good if someone could add more issues / refine some potential inaccuracies.
Problem is word use. The use of the word “security”.
[1] Google android is tracking you even when you’re in Airplane Mode. (It logs all GPS data and then sends out once airplane mode gets disabled.)
Even if google android is safer against exploitation from third parties outside the ecosystem (non-gov, private hackers) and the repository (app store) is relatively free of exploits and other things against google policy, that isn’t what people would conclude and use the common speech word “security”. When knowing [1] most will assume ignorance or malice when saying google android has better security than X. Not sure how to phrase this right. “Google android has better anti-exploitation features than X but overall worse security due to build-in spyware features.”
Similar for Windows with its enabled-by-default keylogger.
[security definition] Maybe one definition of security is “device / operating system does what the owner of the device thinks it does and does what the owner wants (subject to limitations of reasonable possibilities / prospectus)”. A non-consensual upgrade (which can fail and lead to inaccessible data) is thereby considered insecure. “It’s not secure, because you can loose your data.”
That’s a value question. What’s more important. Individual choice (only upgrade with consent) or collective security (forced upgrade to prevent botnet). Similar freedom vs authoritarianism. It’s similar to ask:
Would you rather have criminals continue to “torture kitten” [2] rather than put everyone everywhere (including private rooms) under permanent video surveillance?
You interpreted that table entry as a comment on security / backdoor?
name of chapter: Windows Backdoors and User Freedoms → Both, backdoors, and user freedoms
table entry: User Freedoms → and then it lists that locked bootloader issue.
You’re viewing that table through glasses of security, verified boot? The one who wrote that table entry might not have been well aware of verified boot, maybe also since this isn’t a popular, easy to understand, important looking concept.
But would be better to complain about locked bootloaders than mentioning that verified boot vulnerability specifically indeed.
It wasn’t called a backdoor.
(quote “Table: Windows Backdoors and User Freedom Threats”)
Well, yeah. That wiki page groups together complaints of Windows security and other
- malware infected Windows per 1000 end-user (or any other number of users) VS
- malware infected Debian per 1000 end-user (or any other number of users).
When knowing nothing about security, when taking chances, for end-users certainly Debian has a much lower chance of getting infected by off-the-shelf malware.
As per [security definition] it seems really obvious to me that Windows is less secure than Debian.
It’s not ready. There’s no iso, there’s no website.
[2] Variable. Replace with other atrocities.