@divVerent @thor @inference FLOSS has the potential to be more vulnerable due to the source code being available. People assume that Android is secure enough due to a mix of FLOSS and Proprietary Software or perhaps a flashy commercial. I remember analyzing malware that broke the sandbox, took out Knox without issue, got around the MAC in SELinux, made itself root, bypassed the checks and proceeded to lock the device down with the same tools that it had just defeated. All of that was automated and it wasn't using hardware exploits.

For a PC, Windows and Mac might be more secure than GNU/Linux. Apple Silicon is only good at running what they approve. Windows has the edge on Linux by requiring hardware that isn't old enough to have the secrets revealed. So there are two fair situations in which closed source software has greater security than the open source offerings.

People might say that this is unfair and that Arch Linux wasn't considered but that's okay. Windows just requires reasonably new hardware to make sure that those dirty pirates aren't supporting cyber threats or stealing from starving developers. Apple has once again made the decision to ensure security by making an incredibly powerful and efficient CPU and GPU. Apple also made benchmarks to get past the inherently biased benchmarks that were made for an outdated architectures. Somehow they both managed to do all this and still go through all the trouble and charity to allow open source.