Ubuntu Linux: Unhackable. The Mac? Safari proves its Achilles Heel
A recent contest pitted Mac OS X, Windows Vista, and Ubuntu Linux against each other in terms of security. It took all of two days to hack the Mac (via a web browser exploit). Ubuntu Linux? Three days into the contest, it still hadn't been hacked.
It's very possible that the Mac was the first targeted because everyone wanted the prize: A spiffy new MacBook Air. But that's not the point. Using Firefox may well have resolved the problem, rather than sticking with Apple's Safari browser.
No, the point is that no one could hack Linux.
As for the Vista machine, the hackers are still trying to figure out whether to accept or reject the myriad of popups asking them if they really wanted to do X, Y, and Z. (I just installed Vista via Apple's Bootcamp so that I could run an application that I've been missing and was reminded of how tedious that OS can be about its nagging.)
Matt Asay brings a decade of in-the-trenches open-source business and legal experience to The Open Road, with an emphasis on emerging open-source business strategies and opportunities. Matt is vice president of business development at Alfresco, a company that develops open-source software for content management. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure. You can follow Matt on Twitter @mjasay. 
For starters it did not take the Hackers "all of two days to hack the Mac" it took two minutes at the start of the second day. The first day of the contest only allowed exploits with remotley executing code. On the second day the hackers were allowed send emails that linked to a website with malicious code that took out the apple.
The hackers who hacke the air didn't do it because they wanted the laptop, they did it because they fealt it was the easiest to hack.
Also, the vista machine was hacked about 3 days ago. I believe your source may be alittle out of date.
And lastly, some of the hackers said they could have hacked the Ubuntu machine, but they didn't want to right the code required to do so.
It's not that Linux couldn't be hacked, but that no one wanted to hack it. It maybe more secure, but that doesn't mean it is absolutely secure.
Whilst it doesn't prove Linux is more secure, it certainly does prove having the code in the open doesn't make it less secure. Given the talent in the room, the skills were certainly there to take advantage of access to the source code. If we accept there was plenty of motivation to hack and crack, we can only conclude that system security wasn't compromised by having the code out in the open. In other words, /at the very least/ there was no net loss to security by the process of opening the code and having it peer reviewed and tested. Hopefully we can put to bed once and for all the idea of security by obscurity.
Its called RESPECT. Why would you hack or crack something you and your peers and community helped to build.