A little more research would also have revealed that Trustwave has a rather untrustworthy reputation. Last year, Trustwave, which is also a Secure Socket Layer (SSL) certificate authority, admitted to selling a subordinate root certificate to an organization to allow it to eavesdrop on encrypted employee traffic.
Moving from the general to the specific, if you take a closer look at Trustwave's claims you'll find that they're based on two (2) 2012 examples from Linux and Windows. Trustwave also admits that the number of critical vulnerabilities -- as determined by the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) assessment of factors like potential impact and exploitability -- identified in the Linux kernel were lower than in Windows last year, with 9 in Linux compared to 34 in Windows. The overall seriousness of vulnerabilities were also lower in Linux than Windows, with Linux having an average CVSS score of 7.68 for its vulnerabilities, compared to 8.41 for Microsoft.
So, let me understand this. Linux is less secure than Windows based on a total of four examples, while having slightly more than a quarter of its total security holes and its vulnerabilties are less serious than Windows!? Does this make any sense to you? It doesn't to me.
Given all this, you'll excuse me if I take suggestions that Trustwave has shown Linux to be far less secure than Windows with a mountain-sized grain of salt.
In the meantime, Linux, which I freely admit isn't completely secure—no operating system on the planet ever will be—continues to be be trusted by the world's biggest Web sites, such as Google, Facebook, and Wikipedia and by such mission-critical sites as the New York Stock Exchange and the London Stock Exchange. Now, as it has been for decades, Linux remains more secure than Windows, and no FUD can refute this.