You're viewing a single thread.
I do wonder, hypothetically, if free Linux distros had 80% of the consumer market, would we see just as many dangerous exploits and malware as we do on Windows today? It seems to me that the consumer community is so small that it's hard to say if it's secure or just obscure.
I understand in theory Linux is more secure... But are individual users really not opening themselves up to attacks, downloading foss software right and left? Using built in stores? Wine emulation?
The Linux software you can get as a regular user from your typical Linux distributions is absolutely not any more secure on average than your typical Windows software.
I say this as someone who writes application programs on both systems.
I think it's really debatable whether the Linux kernel is really any more secure than the Windows NT kernel. Linux advocates have pushed the "many eyes, shallow bugs" line for a long time, but high profile lapses seem to really have put the lie to that.
The software itself may or may not be more secure, but acquiring software is absolutely more secure. There's so much Windows malware people unwittingly download from the internet. Downloading from a distro's software repository simply doesn't have that problem.
Also, when not using repositories it is much more common to go to the source, like GitHub releases, etc.
I think the kernel is more secure due to the philosophy of not invading users space.
And the experience of installing software on Linux and on windows is like day and night. On windows you can install since Windows 10 via the appstore. However you don't want to do that since most programs are in there with less features. For example vlc the windows app store app has only basic functionality and is really not worth it.
So on windows you install some random exe from the Internet. You usually Google that and click the first link. This will send you to the fake website vlc.de for example. Then you install it and get free maleware with it. You have to watch out if the website is the correct one.
On Linux you go apt install vlc or you Google how to install and get the command. Or you open the software manager and get the vlc app that is definitely the official one.
Yes and no and yes and no
Yes: Mo people mo problems
No: Linux is already the world’s most popular os in the server space and no problems
Yes: the main security risk in any computer is the user so more viruses would be made to target individuals
No: Linux can be whatever you want it to be that means as open or closed as you want it to be and we think of it as open but every time a Linux program gets popular it has been rebranded and locked down so users can’t put viruses on it.
Yes as if you look at the server market Linux is a prime target
Parts of it seem to be inherently more secure, but there are some pretty glaring holes. At least software distribution is much more secure than the Windows approach.
I'd say the biggest, most glaring hole is that, much like in Windows, most users don't really understand the file system and user and group permissions.
Linux, as an OS, requires a lot more on the users part in understanding basic security right out of the gate.
A lot of folks out here dropping
chmod 777all over the place just because they haven't had any education on how any of it works.Source: Years ago, being a newb without knowledge or education, dropping
chmod 777all over the placeThey used to login as root
Fedora silver blue ftw. Immutable systems are the future.
… yeah :-/
Hopefully you only chmod'd your own systems. Early in my career, I worked on a project wherein we gave a contracting company root access to a computer they could use to test the software they were writing for us. One morning, they sent us a message saying they couldn't log in. We looked at the computer and discovered it wouldn't boot. Turned out someone on the remote team had chmod 777'd the entire filesystem. Of course we locked down their access after that.
It has the ability to lock things down a lot more. Also, it doesn't necessarily have a big attack surface
I think it's rather corporate targets get bigger results than individuals.
Hacking an individual is good if you need a zombie for a botnet.
Hacking a hospital and hitting them with ransomware? Hospitals got some damn money. Regular people do not.
Further, while users might be installing FOSS left-right-and-center, unlike corporations who are installing FOSS, most of what the average user installs doesn't need secure networking and access control rules behind it. Most corporations use a variety of different FOSS all together in one package, and most of them are internet and network oriented, to function at scale, and as such, they have way more easy ways to get in and have way more valuable assets.
I think, even if it had major market share, that most attacks go after big entities these days because the risk just isn't worth it with small potato people like me who are broke, comparatively.
I mean we just got the info on the cups one where you execute arbitrary code by trying to print