4 ms·
> Isn't a Ubuntu server secure out of the box? I think people working at RedHat are more competent in moving security forward on Linux than what Ubuntu does. U
by DyslexicAtheist 5y ago
> Isn't a Ubuntu server secure out of the box?
I think people working at RedHat are more competent in moving security forward on Linux than what Ubuntu does. Ubuntu hardly innovates at all. Its target market seems to be desktop users (or server admins that are only familiar with the Desktop version). Personally I wouldn't put Ubuntu (or any other distribution) on a server without an elaborate playbook to tailor it to my needs (on Ubuntu that playbook is always more complex from my experience). This is where Ubuntu fails for me because it makes some weird assumptions as to what I want in terms of security (which are absent in Debian). YMMV.
Although I think that a distribution's goal should be accessibility and configurability - in that regard all of them don't prioritize security features as much as I'd like to see (but knowing myself I probably would complain the second these features become too opinionated - which they most certainly would - which is why I think Debian does the right thing with not making opinionated assumptions).
Ubuntu compared to Debian standard install is more bloated, interim releases are much buggier, and Ubuntu LTS is less stable than Debian stable. Ubuntu's root certificate store is constantly outdated (though the same issue might also be on Debian). Their apparmor configuration lags behind, ... whatever is good they usually inherit from Debian.
All distributions could do more to lock down processes with seccomp-filters in systemd. Would be interesting to see what lynis⁰ discovers when comparing a fresh server install between Ubuntu and others. In over 20 years I have seen some real shit-shows in production with all distributions except Debian (again ymmv).
Jason Donenfeld, the creator of Wireguard said about Ubuntu on the latest¹ SCW podcast:
> Ubuntu is always, a horrible distribution to work with, ...
> Well, they [Ubuntu] sort of inherit from Debian, but they're like not super tuned in to what's going on and like not really on top of things. And so it was just always, it's still a pain to like make sure Ubuntu is working well. but I don't know, it's not too much interesting to say about the distro story, just open source politics as usual.
while somewhat anecdotal I trust that Jason knows what he is talking about having been on the linux security kernel team for ages and familiar with the quirks of various downstream vendors. His development cycle for WG is: implement -> decompile -> formal-verification -> rinse/repeat :-/
All of Linux security is a shit show. This is why grsecurity is charging money for it's service.
⁰ https://cisofy.com/lynis/ https://cisofy.com/lynis/
¹ https://securitycryptographywhatever.buzzsprout.com/1822302/9667632-wireguard-feat-jason-donenfeld https://securitycryptographywhatever.buzzsprout.com/1822302/...
- pjmlp 5y agoIronically Android is the Linux distribution with more security knobs turned on (LinuxSE, seccomp, HWAsan, FORTIFY_SOURCE, userspace drivers,...) without being really Linux.
- willis936 5y agoAnd yet there is utility in using ubuntu because it's a shared platform that many tools are developed on. It is mostly debian, but it is not exactly debian. Since ubuntu LTS latest is the de facto linux default its shortcomings fall away for swiss-army development.
- eatonphil 5y agoDe facto Linux for who? I've sold on prem apps to enterprises and startups for a while and the majority weren't Ubuntu. It was a mix of Amazon Linux, CentOS, RHEL and Ubuntu or Debian. In containers I most often see Ubuntu-minimal or Alpine. And while Ubuntu is represented in both those groups its not clearly de facto anything. The only place I'd personally argue you really need to run Ubuntu (unless you really want to spend time hacking desktop configuration) is on a laptop. But even then there are a large group of people who do run things other than Ubuntu like PopOS or Mint or Fedora or whatever other new distro there is.
- doubled112 5y agoEvery time I see Ubuntu listed as the "de facto standard" or similar, I realize that I've never seen an Ubuntu server in production. They're definitely a popular solution, and I'm not sure if I should be surprised I've never seen one, or if maybe it's region / industry specific. RHEL? Yes. Lots of CentOS, most now looking at Rocky and Alma. A few Gentoo and Arch boxes at smaller businesses. Been logged into the odd BSD, AIX and HP-UX machine before. Ubuntu? No... Never seem to stumble upon SUSE either, for what it's worth.
- eatonphil 5y agoFrom what I gather, SUSE is more common in Europe. It's the standard distro to be deployed along with SAP which is used there more than Salesforce.