2 ms·
Why would you need root on a typical linux system? A program running under your user account can alter config (in your home directory) to make sure it always ru
by ghusbands 3y ago
Why would you need root on a typical linux system? A program running under your user account can alter config (in your home directory) to make sure it always runs when you log in, can add programs to your path by altering your path, can access all your personal files and can debug-attach to all processes and do what it likes with them (and your personal data) in order to spread mayhem. A lack of root access seems irrelevant to an individual user.
Android is more secure by not acting like a typical Linux install; it's not really evidence of Linux being a tricky target.
- cogman10 3y ago> Why would you need root on a typical linux system? A program running under your user account can alter config (in your home directory) to make sure it always runs when you log in, can add programs to your path by altering your path, can access all your personal files and can debug-attach to all processes and do what it likes with them (and your personal data) in order to spread mayhem. A lack of root access seems irrelevant to an individual user. All true, but I guess I'd just say that the main difference is without root, recovery/removal of the virus is fairly simple (as is detection). To recover, reboot, login as a different user, restore the .bashrc/startup configurations to default, remove the virus. Done. If a virus gets root access, really the only safe way to recover is a full system wipe and reinstall. But I would say that typical linux is more secure than android. It's fairly uncommon to install software from untrusted sources. On debian, I'd do an `apt install xyz" for most stuff. I'm not typically just installing unvetted software from the internet, certainly not something emailed to me.