There's been a few remarks by so called security "experts" that say Google's Android, and to a certain extent Apple's iPhone - once the SDK is released - saying that these opensource phones are going to be a massive security risk.

Are these people morons? Seriously look at the phones that have viruses - Symbian and Windows Mobile. These two platforms are the ONLY ones capable of easily getting viruses and both are CLOSED SOURCE.

Linux phones and Apple's iPhone, which runs a version of Mac OS X (which is based on UNIX), are very difficult to write viruses for. As such to claim that Android (which is based on Linux) is going to be a security threat is a laughable claim at best when compared to the REAL threat of Symbian and Windows Mobile.

The iPhone is in theory easy to write a virus for considering it runs everything as root but it makes sense that when the SDK comes out this will be fixed to make it more secure.

Clearly this campaign against OpenSource phones or UNIX based phones by these "experts" is nothing more than FUD to make it seem the Symbian and Windows Mobile based phones are seen to be the better option. Considering the iPhone has already surpassed Windows Mobile and is rapidly gaining on Symbian it makes sense that these sorts of dirty tactics would be used in an effort to turn the tides but ultimately when people find out the truth then these tactics can backfire, it's already happening with Windows.

OpenSource software in many respects are actually more secure because there are more people writing the software and yet the code still needs to be ratified before it is released. This doesn't seem to happen with closed source and so there are more security holes and bugs that can be exploited. It happens to everyone, even Apple with QuickTime but where Apple seems to differ is their openness with those who find the bugs and the quick turnaround in getting patches out. Depending on the problem of course, some just aren't a simple fix and may need a rewrite of code, these tend to be included in the Combo Updates which as you know occur far more frequently than a Windows Service Pack. Also, considering the so called security risks of OpenSource why has there been no real attack on these systems if anyone can work on the source code? Once again it comes back to ratification. It's actually more difficult to pass on dodgy code if everyone can see what you have done thus ironically OpenSource becomes less of a risk than Closed Source. Once again look at the least secure Operating System and tell me if it is OpenSource or Closed. Now remind me who the security risk is?