6 ms·

Hopefully governments will one day take GNU/Linux based OS & Software. I know, I know ... Linux for Desktop is hard, but it seems like making exploits are harde

Hopefully governments will one day take GNU/Linux based OS & Software. I know, I know ... Linux for Desktop is hard, but it seems like making exploits are harder than doing the same for Windows ( maybe hacker focus is on windows, who knows. ). Anyway money equation I think is quite simple : Why buy Windows, when you can use Linux and buy backup infrastructure.

golergka 9y ago
Why would anyone spend effort to develop ransomware to target OS that is used mostly on servers, by computer professionals and enthusiasts, and in organizations that are managed by admins that are willing to put extra work to support not-standard solution?
- yorwba 9y ago
  To collect a ransom from the corporations that depend on these servers, and from those well-paid computer professionals?
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    Not worth the effort, as end-user systems offer more gain (and the same corporations you mention also need those end-user systems for their employees to do their work).
gaius 9y ago
The recent attack on the NHS targeted Windows XP. I dare you to run a Linux distro from 2001 and tell me its secure from modern attacks.
- lightedman 9y ago
  I run a distro from 1998, it's entirely secure as it has zero network access except via serial port to the CNC it controls.
  - jplayer01 9y ago
    ... Windows XP Would be just as secure with zero network access. What's your point here?
    - lightedman 9y ago
      The point made is that there are plenty of ways to secure older machines, some of them plainly obvious.
      - lightedman 9y ago
        To boot, I have two machines, 2000 and XP, and they can't be touched. Why? Ports I know will not be used are locked down, both systems have their firewalls configured on top of that, and those machines only access certain sites in a non-HOSTS file that Windows cannot bypass like it can in newer versions because it's in the router, an older one which they cannot touch. And no UEFI Windows Partition driver BS, either! Get with the old times, people, before needing Ring 5+ mitigation, when people would actually FIX THEIR HARDWARE.
- drinchev 9y ago
  Although one can argue it's a configuration feature. Having proper multiuser envrionment is already a huge security win.
- eikenberry 9y ago
  That's about the time I installed my Debian system that I am still using today. I updated it continuously over the years, but have never re-installed. I wouldn't say it is secure from all modern attacks, because no system is. But it was never obsoleted.
  - vbezhenar 9y ago
    You can update Windows installations as well. People run Windows XP either because they like its interface or they don't want to risk upgrading. Linux doesn't help with either case. If I liked Debian 3.0, I don't have an easy option to run it with all modern security updates now. The only thing that Linux has is free as beer. Many people don't want to spend money on buying new Windows and Windows XP works for them just fine. Linux could certainly help here.
    - kuschku 9y ago
      Actually, KDE 3 is still being supported. And it was released at the same time as the Windows XP Media Center Edition (which was EOL in 2014)
    - TeMPOraL 9y ago
      Another reason people don't upgrade is because new versions obsolete old hardware. Windows XP can run fine on machines Windows 8 wouldn't even boot on, and even for me, throwing away a perfectly good piece of hardware just to upgrade to a newer OS is kind of shitty idea.
    - gaius 9y ago
      The cost of the OS license is basically a rounding error in the TCO any serious computing environment. It's simply not relevant to this discussion. BTW an enterprise RHEL license cost more than a Windows license last time I checked...
    - belorn 9y ago
      You are comparing upgrading a system with going to the store and buy a new operative system and saying its the same thing. Windows vista was not a Windows XP update, and in theory they could have nothing in common but the name and the publisher. There need to be a meaningful distinction between a software update for a product and a new product. For a operative system, hardware requirement and driver support is quite critical. As a small testament to this, I had a server which hardware initial had 3.0 Woody as the version and ran until 6.0 Squeeze, at which point the motherboard gave up.
- agumonkey 9y ago
  Its a flawed comparison. - The value of Linux is the very thin cost of update (OS and applications). - 1t the cultural level, *nix users are much more tempted to find solutions rather than keep dangerous attack surface running. - Linux runs on old hardware easier, kernel supports old arch, user space is less demanding and doesn't tie you with graphical hardware capabilities for the sake of market share. Linux Mint XFCE is my go to graphical distro for anything even from the XP days (it's butter smooth on a LV 1st gen core + 512MB)

golergka 9y ago

Why would anyone spend effort to develop ransomware to target OS that is used mostly on servers, by computer professionals and enthusiasts, and in organizations that are managed by admins that are willing to put extra work to support not-standard solution?

yorwba 9y ago
To collect a ransom from the corporations that depend on these servers, and from those well-paid computer professionals?
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  Not worth the effort, as end-user systems offer more gain (and the same corporations you mention also need those end-user systems for their employees to do their work).

gaius 9y ago

The recent attack on the NHS targeted Windows XP. I dare you to run a Linux distro from 2001 and tell me its secure from modern attacks.

lightedman 9y ago
I run a distro from 1998, it's entirely secure as it has zero network access except via serial port to the CNC it controls.
- jplayer01 9y ago
  ... Windows XP Would be just as secure with zero network access. What's your point here?
  - lightedman 9y ago
    The point made is that there are plenty of ways to secure older machines, some of them plainly obvious.
    - lightedman 9y ago
      To boot, I have two machines, 2000 and XP, and they can't be touched. Why? Ports I know will not be used are locked down, both systems have their firewalls configured on top of that, and those machines only access certain sites in a non-HOSTS file that Windows cannot bypass like it can in newer versions because it's in the router, an older one which they cannot touch. And no UEFI Windows Partition driver BS, either! Get with the old times, people, before needing Ring 5+ mitigation, when people would actually FIX THEIR HARDWARE.
drinchev 9y ago
Although one can argue it's a configuration feature. Having proper multiuser envrionment is already a huge security win.
eikenberry 9y ago
That's about the time I installed my Debian system that I am still using today. I updated it continuously over the years, but have never re-installed. I wouldn't say it is secure from all modern attacks, because no system is. But it was never obsoleted.
- vbezhenar 9y ago
  You can update Windows installations as well. People run Windows XP either because they like its interface or they don't want to risk upgrading. Linux doesn't help with either case. If I liked Debian 3.0, I don't have an easy option to run it with all modern security updates now. The only thing that Linux has is free as beer. Many people don't want to spend money on buying new Windows and Windows XP works for them just fine. Linux could certainly help here.
  - kuschku 9y ago
    Actually, KDE 3 is still being supported. And it was released at the same time as the Windows XP Media Center Edition (which was EOL in 2014)
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    Another reason people don't upgrade is because new versions obsolete old hardware. Windows XP can run fine on machines Windows 8 wouldn't even boot on, and even for me, throwing away a perfectly good piece of hardware just to upgrade to a newer OS is kind of shitty idea.
  - gaius 9y ago
    The cost of the OS license is basically a rounding error in the TCO any serious computing environment. It's simply not relevant to this discussion. BTW an enterprise RHEL license cost more than a Windows license last time I checked...
  - belorn 9y ago
    You are comparing upgrading a system with going to the store and buy a new operative system and saying its the same thing. Windows vista was not a Windows XP update, and in theory they could have nothing in common but the name and the publisher. There need to be a meaningful distinction between a software update for a product and a new product. For a operative system, hardware requirement and driver support is quite critical. As a small testament to this, I had a server which hardware initial had 3.0 Woody as the version and ran until 6.0 Squeeze, at which point the motherboard gave up.
agumonkey 9y ago
Its a flawed comparison. - The value of Linux is the very thin cost of update (OS and applications). - 1t the cultural level, *nix users are much more tempted to find solutions rather than keep dangerous attack surface running. - Linux runs on old hardware easier, kernel supports old arch, user space is less demanding and doesn't tie you with graphical hardware capabilities for the sake of market share. Linux Mint XFCE is my go to graphical distro for anything even from the XP days (it's butter smooth on a LV 1st gen core + 512MB)