I saw that page too, and the author seems to, uhm, have very strong opinions.
The author has this to say about the Linux kernel:
> The kernel is also very lacking in security. It is a monolithic kernel, meaning it contains a colossal amount of code all within the most privileged part of the operating system. The kernel has huge attack surface and is constantly adding new and dangerous features.
And then goes on about how insecure eBPF and user namespaces are, before concluding with this:
> Other kernels such as the Windows and macOS kernels are somewhat similar too in that they are also large and bloated monolithic kernels with huge attack surface but they at least realise that these issues exist and take further steps to mitigate them.
This person is clearly bending over backwards in his quest to prove how insecure Linux is compared to the competition. Some of his points are true, but there are so many glaring inaccuracies that I don't even know where to begin with. For instance, many links in that article are bogus. Multiple links that's supposed to showcase vulnerabilities in eBPF and user namespaces are just someone ranting about these features instead of it being an actual bug report. Links to a Debian commit disabling user namespaces are explained as a direct result of security bugs, when it's clear from the code comments that it was disabled only as a preventative measure because it was deemed premature by the maintainers. Actual eBPF vulnerabilities linked in the article requires eBPF JIT, a feature disabled by default but not stated as such. And so much more...
The author has this to say about the Linux kernel:
> The kernel is also very lacking in security. It is a monolithic kernel, meaning it contains a colossal amount of code all within the most privileged part of the operating system. The kernel has huge attack surface and is constantly adding new and dangerous features.
And then goes on about how insecure eBPF and user namespaces are, before concluding with this:
> Other kernels such as the Windows and macOS kernels are somewhat similar too in that they are also large and bloated monolithic kernels with huge attack surface but they at least realise that these issues exist and take further steps to mitigate them.
This person is clearly bending over backwards in his quest to prove how insecure Linux is compared to the competition. Some of his points are true, but there are so many glaring inaccuracies that I don't even know where to begin with. For instance, many links in that article are bogus. Multiple links that's supposed to showcase vulnerabilities in eBPF and user namespaces are just someone ranting about these features instead of it being an actual bug report. Links to a Debian commit disabling user namespaces are explained as a direct result of security bugs, when it's clear from the code comments that it was disabled only as a preventative measure because it was deemed premature by the maintainers. Actual eBPF vulnerabilities linked in the article requires eBPF JIT, a feature disabled by default but not stated as such. And so much more...