4 ms·
Aren't the popular Linux distros, with default configuration, much less secure than the other OS like macOS, Windows and surely Android and iOS? I thought this
by oDot 3y ago
Aren't the popular Linux distros, with default configuration, much less secure than the other OS like macOS, Windows and surely Android and iOS?
I thought this was the working assumption.
- jraph 3y agoI would be interested in knowing which threat model we'd be considering to draw this conclusion.
- bediger4000 3y agoInteresting. I believe the opposite, especially with respect to Windows.
- ageofwant 3y agoNo, popular Linux distros, with default configuration, is considerably more secure than Windows, and probably more secure than MacOS. This is universally accepted and basic infosec ken. You thought very wrong, fix your ken.
- oDot 3y agoDon't the others OS have varying levels of app sandboxing while Linux has basically none?
- ageofwant 3y ago'app sandboxing' is one part, of a small part, of a subsection of a general thread model, why would you pick that when you talk about 'secure'? And LOL no, Linux has SELinux, apparmor, firejail, flatpak, snap, docker, lxc, and various hypervisors for 'app sandboxing', Linux does not have 'basically none', it has arguably to many.
- oDot 3y agoStill talking about default config here
- jraph 3y agoAFAIK the default config on Windows to install a program is still downloading an executable installer on Windows. On Linux, the default config is you install most programs from the "trusted" distribution's repositories. Flatpaks and Snaps are increasingly used for apps that are not in the repository. They are not perfect, but they are improving. I don't know how it works for macOS. You'd download a program image but I don't know what the program can do and if there's a sandbox.