4 ms·

Linux may not be totally secure but it is securest of all the viable options.

by timetraveller26 3y ago

neilalexander 3y ago
Depends on your definition of "secure" of course.
hollerith 3y ago
No, Windows, MacOS, iOS, Android and ChromeOS are all much more secure.
- grayhatter 3y ago
  Android and chromeos are Linux based, so it's very interesting that 2 of your 4 most secure operating systems are linux. But this is a perfect example of how the premise itself is fundemntally clickbait. The problem of insecurity is unrelated to Linux, but the execution and privilege model of userspace.
  - ogogmad 3y ago
    For that reason, TFA said Desktop Linux, in order to avoid "pedanticism [sic]".
    - grayhatter 3y ago
      except chromeos is also desktop linux... unless desktop has a different definition than the one I know?
  - pjmlp 3y ago
    Android and ChromeOS use the Linux kernel, they aren't GNU/Linux, as the termux folks are certainly aware.
  - hollerith 3y ago
    I meant that Linux-based systems other than Android, ChromeOS and Qubes are the least secure of the common OS options.
    - grayhatter 3y ago
      Except they're not. They're the most permissive by default, maybe. But they're not the least secure. If you put an assa abloy on your door, and then elect not to lock it. That doesn't mean assa abloy is the least secure lock. Windows has a reputation for being insecure because if you try to keep someone out, they can still get in. This article was written on the idea that Linux is insecure, because when you don't try to keep someone out, they can get in.
      - nolist_policy 3y ago
        Not quite, you can secure and lock down Windows too, the problem is that it isn't secure by default. And 90% of Admins don't bother with securing it other than sprinkling anti-virus on top. Android, ChromeOS and Qubes are secure by default. Though I wouldn't trust a novice user with QubesOS.
- calamari4065 3y ago
  Windows will: spy on you, serve you advertisements, reboot autonomously, destroying your open work, install software without consent, report your browsing behavior to advertisers, literally steal your email password, upload all your files to one drive without consent, forcibly change your default browser, insert aggressive ads for Edge in front of the Firefox download page, show you clickbait tabloid articles in the taskbar. Honestly I'm not sure how you can consider any of that secure.
  - tester756 3y ago
    >spy on you, serve you advertisements this, just like many other points is not security, sorry. Security is about (among other) CVEs, not ads. >reboot autonomously, destroying your open work, bullshit >upload all your files to one drive without consent without consent? did onedrive magically figure out your MS credentials? >steal your email password what?
    - calamari4065 3y ago
      Check the recent headlines. Windows is pushing user files to one drive and stealing email passwords to proxy your email account on Microsoft servers. >>reboot autonomously, destroying your open work, >bullshit Honestly baffled how you can deny this. Windows rebooting on its own is one of the most defining features. >this, just like many other points is not security, sorry. Bullshit.
      - tester756 3y ago
        >Honestly baffled how you can deny this. Windows rebooting on its own is one of the most defining features. There's only scenario where I can imagine Windows rebooting ""on its own"" You've scheduled an update or you're delaying update for long peroid of time? >>this, just like many other points is not security, sorry. >Bullshit. How so? in the principle ads aren't security issues (unless badly implemented) >Check the recent headlines. Windows is pushing user files to one drive and stealing email passwords to proxy your email account on Microsoft servers. I've literally googled: "windows stealing email passwords" and the very first thing is article from 2016 and the other are about Malware/Scam, so how what article are you talking about?
asylteltine 3y ago
Chromeos and Mac OS are way more secure. Inb4 “chromeos is Linux” yeah but no, that’s just pedantic.
- yesco 3y ago
  Half the OP is complaints about Linux kernel security. How is ChromeOS, which uses the Linux kernel, immune from these complaints?
  - hollerith 3y ago
    ChromeOS uses an older kernel than even Debian Stable and RHEL. The older the kernel, the less the security risks. ChromeOS disables io_uring, which most (all?) other distros leave enabled. io_uring present a large attack surface. ChromeOS uses selinux and other containment technologies to contain the processes most vulnerable to adversarial input (namely, the browser and the media codecs). Fedora and RHEL use selinux, too, but there it is specialized in containing any internet services, e.g., a web server, that might be running on the machine: the browser and the media-file viewers (e.g., the PDF reader) are not constrained by selinux at all on Fedora and RHEL. This works fine for servers (which is Red Hat's bread and butter) but is almost useless for clients (devices used by end users). In contrast, the way selinux is used on ChromeOS is effective at securing a computer being used as an internet client. It goes on and on. You should read the OP; it is really quite informative. One thing that bothered me about this story for a long time was the fact that Google is pretty good at security, but Google allows its employees to use Linux on end-user devices. Then I realized that Google cannot trust its employees: with 40,000 software developers, Google must operate so as to be secure even if a few of those developers secretly hate Google and want it to fail or have been paid off or blackmailed into harming Google. The measures Google takes to protect against such employees (i.e., making sure that all code is reviewed by another developer before deployment, and making it so that a reviewer cannot choose which coders he reviews and vice-versa) naturally also protect against Linux running on the devices in front of the employees. (Even then Google is unsatisfied with the security of any of the publicly-available distros with the result that Google maintains its own internal Linux distro.)

Linux may not be totally secure but it is securest of all the viable options.

neilalexander 3y ago

Depends on your definition of "secure" of course.

hollerith 3y ago

No, Windows, MacOS, iOS, Android and ChromeOS are all much more secure.

grayhatter 3y ago
Android and chromeos are Linux based, so it's very interesting that 2 of your 4 most secure operating systems are linux. But this is a perfect example of how the premise itself is fundemntally clickbait. The problem of insecurity is unrelated to Linux, but the execution and privilege model of userspace.
- ogogmad 3y ago
  For that reason, TFA said Desktop Linux, in order to avoid "pedanticism [sic]".
  - grayhatter 3y ago
    except chromeos is also desktop linux... unless desktop has a different definition than the one I know?
- pjmlp 3y ago
  Android and ChromeOS use the Linux kernel, they aren't GNU/Linux, as the termux folks are certainly aware.
- hollerith 3y ago
  I meant that Linux-based systems other than Android, ChromeOS and Qubes are the least secure of the common OS options.
  - grayhatter 3y ago
    Except they're not. They're the most permissive by default, maybe. But they're not the least secure. If you put an assa abloy on your door, and then elect not to lock it. That doesn't mean assa abloy is the least secure lock. Windows has a reputation for being insecure because if you try to keep someone out, they can still get in. This article was written on the idea that Linux is insecure, because when you don't try to keep someone out, they can get in.
    - nolist_policy 3y ago
      Not quite, you can secure and lock down Windows too, the problem is that it isn't secure by default. And 90% of Admins don't bother with securing it other than sprinkling anti-virus on top. Android, ChromeOS and Qubes are secure by default. Though I wouldn't trust a novice user with QubesOS.
calamari4065 3y ago
Windows will: spy on you, serve you advertisements, reboot autonomously, destroying your open work, install software without consent, report your browsing behavior to advertisers, literally steal your email password, upload all your files to one drive without consent, forcibly change your default browser, insert aggressive ads for Edge in front of the Firefox download page, show you clickbait tabloid articles in the taskbar. Honestly I'm not sure how you can consider any of that secure.
- tester756 3y ago
  >spy on you, serve you advertisements this, just like many other points is not security, sorry. Security is about (among other) CVEs, not ads. >reboot autonomously, destroying your open work, bullshit >upload all your files to one drive without consent without consent? did onedrive magically figure out your MS credentials? >steal your email password what?
  - calamari4065 3y ago
    Check the recent headlines. Windows is pushing user files to one drive and stealing email passwords to proxy your email account on Microsoft servers. >>reboot autonomously, destroying your open work, >bullshit Honestly baffled how you can deny this. Windows rebooting on its own is one of the most defining features. >this, just like many other points is not security, sorry. Bullshit.
    - tester756 3y ago
      >Honestly baffled how you can deny this. Windows rebooting on its own is one of the most defining features. There's only scenario where I can imagine Windows rebooting ""on its own"" You've scheduled an update or you're delaying update for long peroid of time? >>this, just like many other points is not security, sorry. >Bullshit. How so? in the principle ads aren't security issues (unless badly implemented) >Check the recent headlines. Windows is pushing user files to one drive and stealing email passwords to proxy your email account on Microsoft servers. I've literally googled: "windows stealing email passwords" and the very first thing is article from 2016 and the other are about Malware/Scam, so how what article are you talking about?

asylteltine 3y ago

Chromeos and Mac OS are way more secure. Inb4 “chromeos is Linux” yeah but no, that’s just pedantic.

yesco 3y ago
Half the OP is complaints about Linux kernel security. How is ChromeOS, which uses the Linux kernel, immune from these complaints?
- hollerith 3y ago
  ChromeOS uses an older kernel than even Debian Stable and RHEL. The older the kernel, the less the security risks. ChromeOS disables io_uring, which most (all?) other distros leave enabled. io_uring present a large attack surface. ChromeOS uses selinux and other containment technologies to contain the processes most vulnerable to adversarial input (namely, the browser and the media codecs). Fedora and RHEL use selinux, too, but there it is specialized in containing any internet services, e.g., a web server, that might be running on the machine: the browser and the media-file viewers (e.g., the PDF reader) are not constrained by selinux at all on Fedora and RHEL. This works fine for servers (which is Red Hat's bread and butter) but is almost useless for clients (devices used by end users). In contrast, the way selinux is used on ChromeOS is effective at securing a computer being used as an internet client. It goes on and on. You should read the OP; it is really quite informative. One thing that bothered me about this story for a long time was the fact that Google is pretty good at security, but Google allows its employees to use Linux on end-user devices. Then I realized that Google cannot trust its employees: with 40,000 software developers, Google must operate so as to be secure even if a few of those developers secretly hate Google and want it to fail or have been paid off or blackmailed into harming Google. The measures Google takes to protect against such employees (i.e., making sure that all code is reviewed by another developer before deployment, and making it so that a reviewer cannot choose which coders he reviews and vice-versa) naturally also protect against Linux running on the devices in front of the employees. (Even then Google is unsatisfied with the security of any of the publicly-available distros with the result that Google maintains its own internal Linux distro.)