If you're trying to say that Microsoft implemented a method of delivering specifically malware executables to every PC, I've got a bridge to sell to you.
No, what I'm saying is that Linux isn't safer simply because "it's not relevant enough to be targeted", it's safer because it doesn't offer mechanisms which could be abused to do this.
Nobody is diminishing LG's blame, LG is guilty of installing malware, and Microsoft is guilty of being grossly negligent and facilitating it. Microsoft implemented this feature knowing that it would eventually be abused for something like this, and it's bad enough to be indistinguishable from malice.
Nobody is diminishing LG's blame, LG is guilty of installing malware, and Microsoft is guilty of being grossly negligent and facilitating it. Microsoft implemented this feature knowing that it would eventually be abused for something like this, and it's bad enough to be indistinguishable from malice.